The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 20, 2018, 09:20:25 pm
-
Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks
By Brandon Carter and Lydia Wheeler - 02/20/18 04:05 PM EST
President Trump said Tuesday he has directed the Department of Justice to propose regulations that would ban bump stocks, devices that allow semi-automatic to be modified to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute.
“We can do more to protect our children. We must do more to protect our children,†Trump said during the announcement at the White House.
Bump stocks came to the forefront of the gun control debate after the deadly mass shooting at a Las Vegas music festival in October that left nearly 60 dead and more than 500 injured. The gunman in that incident allegedly used a bump stock device.
After the deadly Las Vegas shooting, Trump said he directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to clarify whether certain bump stock devices like the once used in Las Vegas are illegal under current law.
more
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374722-trump-to-take-steps-to-ban-bump-stocks (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374722-trump-to-take-steps-to-ban-bump-stocks)
-
Banning a legally owned piece of equipment won't do anything to save children's lives or anyone else lives.
Our supposedly "most conservative President ever" just came down on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment.
-
Back to the homemade versions for $10~20 bucks then.
It is not a complex or difficult item to make.
https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+bump+stocks&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=homemade+bump+stocks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7388j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+bump+stocks&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=homemade+bump+stocks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7388j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
-
Back to the homemade versions for $10~20 bucks then.
It is not a complex or difficult item to make.
https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+bump+stocks&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=homemade+bump+stocks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7388j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+bump+stocks&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=homemade+bump+stocks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7388j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
I'm sure that homemade ones will be just as illegal.
-
Stupid!
-
I'm sure that homemade ones will be just as illegal.
Oh good, because nobody willing to perform a criminal act such as mass murder would ever take the step of have or producing something illegal.
-
So it begins...
-
Back to the homemade versions for $10~20 bucks then.
It is not a complex or difficult item to make.
https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+bump+stocks&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=homemade+bump+stocks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7388j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=homemade+bump+stocks&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=homemade+bump+stocks&aqs=chrome..69i57.7388j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Hell, one of these will do it if you know what you are doing.
(http://dwbcoaching.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/bigstock-Rubber-Band-7974091.jpg)
-
3D Printing Bump-Fire Stocks
https://3dprint.com/190756/3d-printing-bump-fire-stocks/
-
And after the 1.5 TRILLION dollar deficit spending budget that funds the entirety of the Democrat Agenda in-full - now we have "The most Conservative President since Reagan... NO - the most Conservative President EVER in the history of the White House" come down on the Liberal Left end of infringing on the Second Amendment.
Never mind his proposal to expand libel laws to punish media that he does not like.
-
Trump isn't going to get ONE single person to vote for him because of this, but he's going to lose a lot of votes.
-
Where are the resident orange nosers? Also, tuck Frump.
-
I am interested to read the actual wording of this memo. This could be written in such a way that actually bans not just bump stocks, but could be used to ban high capacity magazines or semi-automatic weapons in general.
Example, from the article (albeit this isn't the memo, just the report)
.....devices that allow semi-automatic to be modified to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute.......
Technically, in the right hands with the right magazine, one doesn't need to bump fire to shoot hundreds of rounds per minute. A large enough magazine on a good semi-auto, with an experienced shooter can do that. Sharpshooter Jerry Miculek has videos showing he can shoot 5 shots in one second on one of his competition ARs. (potentially 300 rounds per minute if he could sustain it). That is without a bump fire stock.
-
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,†read the statement, which was issued by NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nra-back-bump-stock-ban-trump-open-restrictions/
This statement from the NRA was from last October and gave him political cover. I’m surprised he didn’t do it sooner. Now, he can say he’s ‘doing something,’ even though it has nothing to do with the latest incident.
It’s basically a throwaway and the anti-2A crowd will quickly say it'snot enough.
-
Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
As soon as the information was revealed that the Vegas shooter had TWELVE AR-15's in his room equipped with bump-stocks, one didn't have to be the brightest bulb around to surmise that those attachments would be "going away soon enough" ...
-
“The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,†read the statement, which was issued by NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox.
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nra-back-bump-stock-ban-trump-open-restrictions/
This statement from the NRA was from last October and gave him political cover. I’m surprised he didn’t do it sooner. Now, he can say he’s ‘doing something,’ even though it has nothing to do with the latest incident.
It’s basically a throwaway and the anti-2A crowd will quickly say it'snot enough.
There are a lot of NRA members unhappy with the current cabal running the NRA. They've become like the GOP leadership in the senate. They have their own agenda...they don't truly represent the rank and file and they'll do what's politically expedient whether it's in line with the 2A or not.
NRA needs new blood in the headquarters...Cox...LaPierre and a few others need to go.
-
There are a lot of NRA members unhappy with the current cabal running the NRA. They've become like the GOP leadership in the senate. They have their own agenda...they don't truly represent the rank and file and they'll do what's politically expedient whether it's in line with the 2A or not.
NRA needs new blood in the headquarters...Cox...LaPierre and a few others need to go.
The NRA is a lot more moderate than most realize. They often seem like dems compared to groups like the GOA. They are just an easy boogeyman for the left.
-
Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.
As soon as the information was revealed that the Vegas shooter had TWELVE AR-15's in his room equipped with bump-stocks, one didn't have to be the brightest bulb around to surmise that those attachments would be "going away soon enough" ...
You may as well ban rubber bands and popsicle sticks... Because every guy I know can make a bumpstop with nothing more. Likewise, we all have set the trigger too light and had the experience of multiple fires from a single light pull... And usually, all that is learned early on.
This is idiocy.
-
To ban bump fire stocks, the Trump administration will have to set some kind of standard for “acceptable†rate-of-fire. There is just no other way to do it. And once you do that, well, you’ve opened the door to banning all sorts of otherwise benign devices, like competition triggers.
And once you do that, you’ve opened the door to an anti-gun rights administration’s ability to ban other functions and features — as they do in New York to ban “assault rifles.â€
-
Where are the resident orange nosers? Also, tuck Frump.
My thoughts too. They conveniently avoid threads that make him the left wing New Yorker that he is.
-
If there was ever a single chance in hell that I might be talked into voting for him in round two... TOUCH... even graze the R2KBA, and all chance is gone.
-
My thoughts too. They conveniently avoid threads that make him the left wing New Yorker that he is.
11th Commandment and all. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Where are the resident orange nosers? Also, tuck Frump.
They are waiting for their dear leader to tell them what to think.
-
The NRA is a lot more moderate than most realize. They often seem like dems compared to groups like the GOA. They are just an easy boogeyman for the left.
I've been learning just how moderate they are via some recent articles at The Truth About Guns and Ammoland.
-
You may as well ban rubber bands and popsicle sticks... Because every guy I know can make a bumpstop with nothing more. Likewise, we all have set the trigger too light and had the experience of multiple fires from a single light pull... And usually, all that is learned early on.
This is idiocy.
You know what is coming - banning of information. Case in point- The Anarchists Cookbook.
-
BREAKING: TRUMP DIRECTS SESSIONS TO BAN BUMP STOCKS
Posted at 4:21 pm on February 20, 2018 by Caleb Howe
President Trump has announced that he is directing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to move forward on banning certain gun modifications, notably, the infamous “bump stock†that was instrumental in the Las Vegas massacre last October.
https://www.redstate.com/absentee/2018/02/20/breaking-trump-directs-sessions-ban-bump-stocks/ (https://www.redstate.com/absentee/2018/02/20/breaking-trump-directs-sessions-ban-bump-stocks/)
-
:facepalm2:
-
Funny, I thought congress created law and the President signs or rejects it.
-
Funny, I thought congress created law and the President signs or rejects it.
No. That was abolished during the last Imperial Presidential regime.
Now it is precedent and 'legal' since the branches of government designed to hold such brazen violations of the Constitution in check were willfully derelict in their duty.
So now welcome to presidential decrees.
-
Trump isn't going to get ONE single person to vote for him because of this, but he's going to lose a lot of votes.
It's not votes; it's adoration. The man is fueled by ego boosts.
-
Funny, I thought congress created law and the President signs or rejects it.
@DB
This claims that the law is already in place, and it's just an interpretation.
(https://www.redstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/memorandum.jpg)
-
You know what is coming - banning of information. Case in point- The Anarchists Cookbook.
As long as folks believe the police can save them, they are going to opt for police state.
Unfortunately, that has never been true, and there is a price to pay when that state reaches the point of no return... Then bump stocks would be a handy thing to know how to do... in desperation, and without hope.
-
That is if Sessions can wake up.
-
*SPIT*
Tump is done as far as I am concerned.
He is performing as predicted, and I will have no use for him. any chance of voting for his second term, however small, passed away in this very moment.
The Porkulus Rectumus had me there already, but this, without a doubt, is nonredeemable.
-
*SPIT*
Tump is done as far as I am concerned.
He is performing as predicted, and I will have no use for him. any chance of voting for his second term, however small, passed away in this very moment.
The Porkulus Rectumus had me there already, but this, without a doubt, is nonredeemable.
New York values!
-
(http://i65.tinypic.com/14jqjhh.jpg)
-
New York values!
The only problem with the "New York values" idea is that it implies he has principles of some sort.
-
Trump only wants to be seen as *winning*.
He doesn't really give a crap if it's outright Communist Despotism - if it will get an applause - he will push it and take credit for the 'win'.
It's how he can sign a 1.5 TRILLION deficit spending budget and smile about it.
He will do the same with whatever gun bans and infringements he thinks is going to get him fawning accolades.
It is why I refused to vote for the guy.
-
Everyone knew this was coming and yet no one has proposed a strategy to make the case for gun ownership that is not infringed upon is any shape, manner or form --- that also addresses the very real and very valid concern people have about the slaughter of innocents.
Sorry, but quoting the Constitution to a generation of Americans who haven't read it and certainly don't understand it is simply not enough. It will not be successful. Rights will be infringed --- even further than the smoke and mirror changes ordered by the President.
What's the plan?
-
Everyone knew this was coming and yet no one has proposed a strategy to make the case for gun ownership that is not infringed upon is any shape, manner or form --- that also addresses the very real and very valid concern people have about the slaughter of innocents.
Sorry, but quoting the Constitution to a generation of Americans who haven't read it and certainly don't understand it is simply not enough. It will not be successful. Rights will be infringed --- even further than the smoke and mirror changes ordered by the President.
What's the plan?
The plan is to leave it the hell alone.
If you don't want kids getting slaughtered, look to why they weren't slaughtered back in the day, when guns were far more prevalent, and do that.
-
Many Americans will consider these steps rational and appropriate. The onus is on gun owners to prove them wrong.
Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of “machinegun†under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.
Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/ (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-application-definition-machinegun-bump-fire-stocks-similar-devices/)
-
Many Americans will consider these steps rational and appropriate. The onus is on gun owners to prove them wrong.
Riiiight. Devices like rubber bands and Popsicle sticks.
Plastic banana feel good bullshit.
Won't stop a dang thing.
So how is that rational or appropriate?
-
The plan is to leave it the hell alone.
If you don't want kids getting slaughtered, look to why they weren't slaughtered back in the day, when guns were far more prevalent, and do that.
I don't disagree with you @roamer_1 ... But this sounds cold and irrational in light of the number of innocents killed in schools and clubs and at concerts. People won't want to hear about "back in the day" --- they want their kids safe NOW. in THIS day.
What's the plan?
-
Riiiight. Devices like rubber bands and Popsicle sticks.
Plastic banana feel good bullshit.
Won't stop a dang thing.
So how is that rational or appropriate?
I think part of the disconnect is most Americans don't know about guns. We've either got to get around this or through it, or the counter-argument will not be heard.
-
I don't disagree with you @roamer_1 ... But this sounds cold and irrational in light of the number of innocents killed in schools and clubs and at concerts. People won't want to hear about "back in the day" --- they want their kids safe NOW. in THIS day.
What's the plan?
That is the only plan - the only one that will work.
There is no safety. Only those who would trade liberty for the illusion thereof.
The entire premise is nothing but foolishness.
-
I don't disagree with you @roamer_1 ... But this sounds cold and irrational in light of the number of innocents killed in schools and clubs and at concerts. People won't want to hear about "back in the day" --- they want their kids safe NOW. in THIS day.
What's the plan?
Cheer the Despotic Police State that they demand. That is the plan apparently.
The idea of liberty is abhorrent to a people who demand government-provided safety and security.
This is why we are a Constitutional Republic no more.
-
I don't disagree with you @roamer_1 ... But this sounds cold and irrational in light of the number of innocents killed in schools and clubs and at concerts. People won't want to hear about "back in the day" --- they want their kids safe NOW. in THIS day.
What's the plan?
Come on. Do you really believe that will make the kids safe? These things happen because evil exists in the world. If you could stop the demons in people's heads you could stop mass shootings. In Sweden they had a school attack and people died. The attacker wielded a sword and knives. Well maybe not as many died. But today it is bump stock. Another day it is another kind of gun or weapon, or perhaps even with a ban another illegal gun with bump stock. Laws don't stop demons.
-
Come on. Do you really believe that will make the kids safe? These things happen because evil exists in the world. If you could stop the demons in people's heads you could stop mass shootings. In Sweden they had a school attack and people died. The attacker wielded a sword and knives. Well maybe not as many died. But today it is bump stock. Another day it is another kind of gun or weapon, or perhaps even with a ban another illegal gun with bump stock. Laws don't stop demons.
This completely deflects attention away from the fact that the FBI completely disregarded a tip received regarding Nikolas Cruz.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/16/alleged-florida-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz-was-reported-to-fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/16/alleged-florida-school-shooter-nikolas-cruz-was-reported-to-fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html)
I'm getting tired of six dimensional chess.
-
Fine. Make another law.
Like the criminals will suddenly give a sh*t.
Expect agencies which failed to note the latest impending disaster to enforce it.
Crank the 'stupid' knob to 11.
And people will ignore it if it is stupid enough. This qualifies.
-
(http://i65.tinypic.com/14jqjhh.jpg)
Up there with the uh......... Adding a 25 cent gasoline tax is a conservative value crowd. These orange fools just crack me up.
:silly:
-
Come on. Do you really believe that will make the kids safe? These things happen because evil exists in the world. If you could stop the demons in people's heads you could stop mass shootings. In Sweden they had a school attack and people died. The attacker wielded a sword and knives. Well maybe not as many died. But today it is bump stock. Another day it is another kind of gun or weapon, or perhaps even with a ban another illegal gun with bump stock. Laws don't stop demons.
QFT
-
QFT
The looney left have become quite experts on exploiting tragedy.
-
Everyone knew this was coming and yet no one has proposed a strategy to make the case for gun ownership that is not infringed upon is any shape, manner or form --- that also addresses the very real and very valid concern people have about the slaughter of innocents.
Sorry, but quoting the Constitution to a generation of Americans who haven't read it and certainly don't understand it is simply not enough. It will not be successful. Rights will be infringed --- even further than the smoke and mirror changes ordered by the President.
What's the plan?
There is no plan that ever was or ever will be conceived that can counteract the emotional response that people have, not in any significant way. Besides that, we now have a supposedly most conservative POTUS evah that has signaled that bump stocks are really bad things. You don't counteract that. Thanks POTUS.
-
Many Americans will consider these steps rational and appropriate. The onus is on gun owners to prove them wrong.
Has anyone seen discussion from the Administration how to handle the hundred thousand (complete guess, maybe off by a factor of 20) already legally purchased by Americans?
-
Up there with the uh......... Adding a 25 cent gasoline tax is a conservative value crowd. These orange fools just crack me up.
:silly:
Yes, the gs tax is one of the most regressive, and especially against populations which have no alternative to driving. Bad climates and rural people hardest hit.
-
White House on ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban: ‘We Haven’t Closed Doors on Any Front’ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/20/white-house-on-assault-weapons-ban-we-havent-closed-doors-on-any-front/)
During Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked about a proposed “assault weapons†ban and said, “We haven’t closed the door on any front.â€
-
I don't disagree with you @roamer_1 ... But this sounds cold and irrational in light of the number of innocents killed in schools and clubs and at concerts. People won't want to hear about "back in the day" --- they want their kids safe NOW. in THIS day.
What's the plan?
The Second Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want guns, and they want them free of simple requirements of registration and insurance which are commonplace with respect to other useful but inherently dangerous implements.
Trump's motivation is likely political. He can see where the GOP's future is headed when, as appears inevitable, the community that demands answers to the senseless violence outnumbers the gun fetishists. Banning bump stocks will solve little, but does present the illusion of "doing something". Coming out in favor of gun violence restraining orders will likely do more, especially since responsible gun owners can see the value of such focused intervention.
But the current battle is political. The Dems see the tide is turning after Las Vegas and Parkland. The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that gun regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.
-
The First Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want to say whatever they want, believe whatever they want, and they want to speak and communicate free of simple requirements for permission, regulation, and limits which are commonplace with respect to other useful but inherently dangerous ideas.
The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that speech, press and religion regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.
-
What do we want? Tongue control! When do we want it? Now!
The First Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want to say whatever they want, believe whatever they want, and they want to speak and communicate free of simple requirements for permission, regulation, and limits which are commonplace with respect to other useful but inherently dangerous ideas.
The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that speech, press and religion regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.
The Sixth Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want speedy and fair trial, they want an impartial jury, they want to hear their charges, they want to confront witnesses and accusers, and they want the assistance of lawyers during the process.
The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that the justice system assumes that the accused is guilty until proven innocent.
-
Come on. Do you really believe that will make the kids safe? These things happen because evil exists in the world. If you could stop the demons in people's heads you could stop mass shootings.In Sweden they had a school attack and people died. The attacker wielded a sword and knives. Well maybe not as many died. But today it is bump stock. Another day it is another kind of gun or weapon, or perhaps even with a ban another illegal gun with bump stock. Laws don't stop demons.
All true @Chosen Daughter .
But the parents burying their children and the parents worried their children are next want a tangible change. If gun owners and Constitutionalists are going to rally around the slogan: "laws don't stop demons", they're going down in defeat.
I hope conservatives do not talk and talk, analyze, justify and wave the Constitution in one hand and a rifle in the other. Someone has to take the lead --- so maybe call your Congresscritters and demand an Action Plan to protect our children without taking away gun rights. The key word is "ACTION".
-
Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks
One thing most of the world and the looney left does not understand. The American psyche is unique. As a people we do not like to be dictated too. It's only been amost a 100 years since prohibition was passed, and we know how that worked out. Politicians never learn I guess
-
All true @Chosen Daughter .
But the parents burying their children and the parents worried their children are next want a tangible change. If gun owners and Constitutionalists are going to rally around the slogan: "laws don't stop demons", they're going down in defeat.
I hope conservatives do not talk and talk, analyze, justify and wave the Constitution in one hand and a rifle in the other. Someone has to take the lead --- so maybe call your Congresscritters and demand an Action Plan to protect our children without taking away gun rights. The key word is "ACTION".
@Right_in_Virginia
Thats already being done.
Adding armed security to schools is one thing.
-
But the current battle is political. The Dems see the tide is turning after Las Vegas and Parkland. The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that gun regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.
@Jazzhead
The GOP also needs to take this moment to make some changes in law enforcement, including the FBI, security in schools, including ending the BS "gun free zones", the responsibilities and accountability of school boards, school administrators, teachers and parents.
"Reasonable, limited and efficacious" changes to gun laws is one side of the coin and should be approached with extreme caution. The other side of the coin is the identification of the threat before the shooting starts --- and the means and processes to address this needs to clear, efficacious and mandatory.
-
What do we want? Tongue control! When do we want it? Now!
The Sixth Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want speedy and fair trial, they want an impartial jury, they want to hear their charges, they want to confront witnesses and accusers, and they want the assistance of lawyers during the process.
The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that the justice system assumes that the accused is guilty until proven innocent.
Exactly. When we can make one Right a government-granted privilege - they can make all of them privileges that can be granted, modified and rescinded on any whim.
And if you refuse to budge on surrendering those rights, why you are "selfish" and an "absolutist" and will eventually need to be eliminated.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Thats already being done.
Adding armed security to schools is one thing.
Good .. but it can't be one at a time throw this out and see if it sticks.
A complete plan is needed .... and communication strategies need to be coordinated and uniform. I hope this is one of the outcomes from the President's meetings this week.
They're coming for the guns ... and if we don't get this right, now, this will be THE issue during the mid-terms and that's really too awful to think about before noon. ^-^
-
Banning a legally owned piece of equipment won't do anything to save children's lives or anyone else lives.
Our supposedly "most conservative President ever" just came down on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment.
The average citizen can't get a concealed carry permit in New York City (and dozens of other cities), but the threat to the second amendment is about to land on us if bump stocks are banned? A bump stock ban, a device I never heard of till Las Vegas, is not a threat to the RKBA. That ship has sailed already.
If it helps Trump with soccer moms and helps us win the midterms I don’t give a whit if I can’t get a hold of a nice bump stock, a .50 caliber machine gun or a tank. I’ll just have to forgo those as being a bit of overkill here in the burbs.
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .
-
One thing we can count on - a bump on banned stocks. These things are probably flying off the shelves.
-
The average citizen can't get a concealed carry permit in New York City (and dozens of other cities), but the threat to the second amendment is about to land on us if bump stocks are banned? A bump stock ban, a device I never heard of till Las Vegas, is not a threat to the RKBA. That ship has sailed already.
If it helps Trump with soccer moms and helps us win the midterms I don’t give a whit if I can’t get a hold of a nice bump stock, a .50 caliber machine gun or a tank. I’ll just have to forgo those as being a bit of overkill here in the burbs.
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .
Your vote might be for sale, but mine isn't.
-
The average citizen can't get a concealed carry permit in New York City (and dozens of other cities), but the threat to the second amendment is about to land on us if bump stocks are banned? A bump stock ban, a device I never heard of till Las Vegas, is not a threat to the RKBA. That ship has sailed already.
If it helps Trump with soccer moms and helps us win the midterms I don’t give a whit if I can’t get a hold of a nice bump stock, a .50 caliber machine gun or a tank. I’ll just have to forgo those as being a bit of overkill here in the burbs.
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .
QFT
-
@Jazzhead
The GOP also needs to take this moment to make some changes in law enforcement, including the FBI, security in schools, including ending the BS "gun free zones", the responsibilities and accountability of school boards, school administrators, teachers and parents.
"Reasonable, limited and efficacious" changes to gun laws is one side of the coin and should be approached with extreme caution. The other side of the coin is the identification of the threat before the shooting starts --- and the means and processes to address this needs to clear, efficacious and mandatory.
I have no problem with any of that, @Right_in_Virginia
-
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless.
Not really. It shows a willingness to chip away at rights for political expediency. What is the next thing to go after another incident? All this does is embolden the anti-gun crowd.
-
The Second Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want guns, and they want them free of simple requirements of registration and insurance which are commonplace with respect to other useful but inherently dangerous implements.
Trump's motivation is likely political. He can see where the GOP's future is headed when, as appears inevitable, the community that demands answers to the senseless violence outnumbers the gun fetishists. Banning bump stocks will solve little, but does present the illusion of "doing something". Coming out in favor of gun violence restraining orders will likely do more, especially since responsible gun owners can see the value of such focused intervention.
But the current battle is political. The Dems see the tide is turning after Las Vegas and Parkland. The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that gun regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.
Just tell me how registration and insurance would have prevented this.
Go for it.
Then peddle that bullshit elsewhere.
-
The average citizen can't get a concealed carry permit in New York City (and dozens of other cities), but the threat to the second amendment is about to land on us if bump stocks are banned? A bump stock ban, a device I never heard of till Las Vegas, is not a threat to the RKBA. That ship has sailed already.
If it helps Trump with soccer moms and helps us win the midterms I don’t give a whit if I can’t get a hold of a nice bump stock, a .50 caliber machine gun or a tank. I’ll just have to forgo those as being a bit of overkill here in the burbs.
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .
By that reckoning, is there a threat to the First Amendment if "hate speech" is banned? You know, 'hate speech' - ideas that political folks don't approve of is not a threat to the RTFS. Maybe that ship will sail shortly also.
I suppose if it helps Trump with elections, we shouldn't give a whit if we cannot write or say anything that criticizes politicians, certain classes of protected peoples or religious beliefs that are deemed to be hate. You'll just have to forego those as being overkill.
-
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .
@aligncare
No it's not. It's a sign of things to come if people just stand idly by and allow this to happen. If the left and the Federal Government can set limits on the rate of fire on a weapon...which is essentially what they're doing here...it's the proverbial camel's nose under the tent flap for them to begin to limit everything else and at a federal level and to violate the 2nd Amendment in ways that states are already doing when it comes to capacity...types of guns allowed to be sold in a particular state...bullet taxes...bullet types...gun registration...the list is endless.
Never mind the fact there are people that can fire semi-auto pistols and rifles at a faster rate than if a bump stock is employed.
As Justice Thomas has accurately pointed out...the 2nd Amendment has become the stepchild debate the SCOTUS doesn't want to touch and the lower courts have taken notice.
Which is why you see places like New York and California and a few other states wo wantonly violate the 2nd Amendment.
-
Not really. It shows a willingness to chip away at rights for political expediency. What is the next thing to go after another incident? All this does is embolden the anti-gun crowd.
It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.
I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?
-
It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.
I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?
Trump won't gain one vote from this...the people whining aren't going to vote for him anyway. All he did was piss off conservatives.
-
It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.
I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?
I’m not entirely sure what your lousy local gun laws have to do with rights for the rest of us.
-
Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?
And people wonder how the Party of Reagan became Democrat-lite.
-
Trump won't gain one vote from this...the people whining aren't going to vote for him anyway. All he did was piss off conservatives.
And he will continue to do so, and his acolytes will continue to Trumpsplain why abolishing the Second Amendment, trillions in deficit spending and amnesty will MAGA.
-
Just tell me how registration and insurance would have prevented this.
Go for it.
Then peddle that bullshit elsewhere.
The post to which you responded mentioned gun violence restraining orders. Such a law could very well have prevented Parkland.
My advocacy of registration and insurance is not directly tied to Parkland, although perhaps Cruz would have thought twice had he been required to register and insure the object of his fetish. Or perhaps not. I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles. There may be half a trillion firearms in this country, most completely outside the purview of law enforcement. An insurance requirement will encourage gun owners to report thefts, since otherwise they'd be liable for harm caused by their guns, and will create a pool from which victims of gun violence can be compensated for medical costs and lost earnings.
-
The average citizen can't get a concealed carry permit in New York City (and dozens of other cities), but the threat to the second amendment is about to land on us if bump stocks are banned? A bump stock ban, a device I never heard of till Las Vegas, is not a threat to the RKBA. That ship has sailed already.
Consider some 22% of NYC residents are non-citizens, so one in four will have some difficulty. Of course, we all know NYC is one of the safest places to live on the planet. That ship sailed in 1934, to make people "safer". It failed, like every measure which has been passed since. They have provided Federal Agencies with the ability to kill quite a few people from gun collectors to church groups, and I bet that makes you feel safer.
If it helps Trump with soccer moms and helps us win the midterms I don’t give a whit if I can’t get a hold of a nice bump stock, a .50 caliber machine gun or a tank. I’ll just have to forgo those as being a bit of overkill here in the burbs.
Yo! Esau! (http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2372639/jewish/For-a-Mess-of-Pottage.htm) Seriously? You'd trade a Right for the reelection of a politician who has called for an infringement on the Right?
Nothing like enthusiastically voting your way to tyranny, Devil take the hindmost!
Just because you don't want it, f*ck everyone else? Even if they don't have a neighbor for miles? **nononono*
Our Constitution was crafted to protect the Rights of the few against the whim of the multitude.
A ban on bump stocks is meaningless. .
Maybe (except for the above principle being violated, until the first person gets arrested/incarcerated/shot over having one. Like a "high capacity" (standard issue) magazine, making it illegal, even a felony, to have a piece of equipment that is of itself incapable of discharging even a single shot is not only an ineffective way to prevent crime, but a great way to create an entire class of criminals who never did and never will do anyone any harm.
For some reason, there is a group of people who think that will somehow make them safer. **nononono*
In the meantime, there are tens of millions of people here illegally, committing not just that crime, but a host of others, but those people will, on occasion, line up body-less heads on the border, and just aren't the folks to mess with if you want to be guaranteed to draw a pension.
So let's have another round of demonizing a gadget and peaceful gun owners and make a new class of criminals to make it look like LEOs are "doing something" rather than deal with the very real problems out there. Who cares, as long as it gets some jackasses reelected? And whatever you do, let's not mention the failures of the existing agencies and laws, and point (Shiny!) to a proposed "meaningless" law that diminishes our rights, whether you choose to exercise them or not.
-
I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles.
You ignore the reasons and try to imply false comparisons. Ownership and use of a vehicle does not require insurance nor registration.
Use on public roads makes that requirement.
You could make a reasoned argument for carry licenses to include such requirements, on a state level, but ownership is a false claim.
-
I have no problem with any of that, @Right_in_Virginia
:thumbsup:
-
You could make a reasoned argument for carry licenses to include such requirements, on a state level, but ownership is a false claim.
Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?
-
It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.
Then someone in New York state needs to launch a Heller style case against the City and State of New York.
Because The City and State are both in violation of the 2nd Amendment. "Shall not infringe" means something even today. And they are both willfully infringing on a person's right and ability to keep and bear arms.
It's sad to see how far New York has fallen. They were one colonies that insisted there be a 2nd Amendment in the Constitution before the state would ratify it.
I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?
You are completely naïve on this issue. You can stand by that statement all you want and you'll do it at the cost of the destruction of the Constitution.
Without the 2nd Amendment...there is no protections for the other 9 original amendments in the Bill of Rights.
-
Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?
No. Not if it's forced upon us as a requirement for ownership.
-
No. Not if it's forced upon us as a requirement for ownership.
What about if it was for carrying outside your home?
-
The post to which you responded mentioned gun violence restraining orders. Such a law could very well have prevented Parkland.
No it wouldn't have. But you continue to deal in what if's and good intentions that lead to nowhere.
My advocacy of registration and insurance is not directly tied to Parkland, although perhaps Cruz would have thought twice had he been required to register and insure the object of his fetish. Or perhaps not. I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles. There may be half a trillion firearms in this country, most completely outside the purview of law enforcement. An insurance requirement will encourage gun owners to report thefts, since otherwise they'd be liable for harm caused by their guns, and will create a pool from which victims of gun violence can be compensated for medical costs and lost earnings.
You're making silly arguments based on emotion and feelings...like most liberals are want to do.
Those type of feel good do nothing substantial hopes and dreams you peddle in order to whittle away at constitutional rights blow away like sand in a stiff breeze when confronted with the facts you ignore on this issue on almost an hourly basis.
-
I advocate registration...
Which leads to direct confiscation sooner or later, without exception EVERY SINGLE TIME registration has ever been imposed.
Of course you advocate for it.
-
Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?
I see states having that authority, not the federal government.
But I most prefer the Alaskan style carry requirements. If you are legally allowed to own the gun, you are allowed to carry it with you. Often called constitution carry.
-
Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?
Would you support an insurance requirement and license to be able to post your political thoughts on the internet?
-
What about if it was for carrying outside your home?
Again the answer is no if it's forced upon us as a requirement to have a permit.
It's a backdoor form of gun registration. And it leaves something like that susceptible to the whim of a state that can and would set the "insurance" premium and deductible requirements and rates to such a costly level that it would make it impossible for your average American or someone on a fixed income to own a weapon.
And that would be a gun ban in all but the name.
-
The post to which you responded mentioned gun violence restraining orders. Such a law could very well have prevented Parkland.
My advocacy of registration and insurance is not directly tied to Parkland, although perhaps Cruz would have thought twice had he been required to register and insure the object of his fetish. Or perhaps not. I advocate registration and insurance for many of the reasons that regime works with respect to motor vehicles. There may be half a trillion firearms in this country, most completely outside the purview of law enforcement. An insurance requirement will encourage gun owners to report thefts, since otherwise they'd be liable for harm caused by their guns, and will create a pool from which victims of gun violence can be compensated for medical costs and lost earnings.
His online posts of "professional school shooter" with images of him with firearms had been reported to law enforcement.
That didn't work, how will adding in more BS make anyone safer? It just makes more jobs for the Union.
You forget that the primary purpose of the protected, enumerated RKBA being protected and enumerated is to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government. That is our insurance. Bearing and being proficient with arms is insurance, not just against that tyranny, but against malevolent and dangerous persons n general.
Not one government which has required firearms registration has failed, in its course of existence to ultimately use those registrations as the tool to confiscate those arms. While there are governments which have not reached that point yet, there are plenty which reached those levels before becoming repressive and totalitarian, usually accompanied with mass murder by the State.
Requiring insurance (liability insurance for having a gun) is just back door registration. Many gun owners carry personal liability insurance, and that covers their actions, regardless of whether with a firearm or a rock from their lawnmower, whatever, so long as they aren't committing a crime at the time. Singling out gun owners isn't going to stop the criminals any more than requiring auto insurance will get my vehicle fixed because some uninsured jackass runs into it. Only full coverage victim insurance (known as comprehensive and collision "full coverage" in the car insurance industry) will fix the victim if the owner isn't insured, as few criminals are going to run out and register the gun they are not legally capable of possessing, much less insure it. Which brings us back to universally required/ state provided health care, etc.
Just no. There is nothing reasonable about requiring people to pay for a fundamental right because of the presumed or anticipated actions of others who commit crimes. That isn't Due Process, but it is sure removing "life, liberty, or property" without it.
-
I see states having that authority, not the federal government.
But I most prefer the Alaskan style carry requirements. If you are legally allowed to own the gun, you are allowed to carry it with you. Often called constitution carry.
Several states are like that Idaho is another one. Vermont is the one that got the ball rolling on this in modern times.
-
What about if it was for carrying outside your home?
I think most of us carry a weapon (protection version) at home, the vehicle, or at range.... and transport between the 3.
What are you getting at?
-
Again the answer is no if it's forced upon us as a requirement to have a permit.
It's a backdoor form of gun registration. And it leaves something like that susceptible to the whim of a state that can and would set the "insurance" premium and deductible requirements and rates to such a costly level that it would make it impossible for your average American or someone on a fixed income to own a weapon.
And that would be a gun ban in all but the name.
So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?
-
Several states are like that Idaho is another one. Vermont is the one that got the ball rolling on this in modern times.
By "modern times" do you mean since the state first existed? Or the 1903 Vermont Supreme Court case with Andrew Rosenthal?
Vermont’s Long, Strange Trip to Gun-Rights Paradise
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/vermont-gun-rights-constitutional-carry/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/vermont-gun-rights-constitutional-carry/)
Cheers!
-
Which leads to direct confiscation sooner or later, without exception EVERY SINGLE TIME registration has ever been imposed.
When and where was this?
-
So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?
Good point.
-
So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?
No, you are not required to have liability insurance in almost any activity that can lead to injury. Do you think that should be changed, or just the ones involving guns?
If you think only guns, why is that?
-
What about if it was for carrying outside your home?
Not many people have a shooting range at home. Maintaining proficiency with a firearm takes practice, especially with a handgun. Therefore, to remain proficient, one must carry the firearm outside the home. What you propose would only have an uptick in people who were less proficient with their self-defense weapon, which would have the unintended consequence of making those firearms owners less effective when using their weapon for defense, and potential to make them more dangerous to others in the area if used for self-defense.
Then, too, consider you propose the same rules for someone living downtown somewhere and the person living on a ten section (one section=1 square mile) ranch or wheat farm.
-
So when Dick Cheney shot his friend while hunting, he didn't need to have liability insurance?
Gun owners could get n insurance waiver, if they agree in advance to eat their kill, as do migrants to France.
-
When and where was this?
WWII Germany...Russia...New Zealand...Canada...Australia...The UK...Cuba...Bermuda...Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia.
-
Gun owners could get n insurance waiver, if they agree in advance to eat their kill, as do migrants to France.
So as long as he killed and ate his friend, he was covered ;)?
-
Not many people have a shooting range at home. Maintaining proficiency with a firearm takes practice, especially with a handgun. Therefore, to remain proficient, one must carry the firearm outside the home. What you propose would only have an uptick in people who were less proficient with their self-defense weapon, which would have the unintended consequence of making those firearms owners less effective when using their weapon for defense, and potential to make them more dangerous to others in the area if used for self-defense.
Then, too, consider you propose the same rules for someone living downtown somewhere and the person living on a ten section (one section=1 square mile) ranch or wheat farm.
Thank you; this makes a lot of sense! I know some people can shoot on their property, but obviously not everyone has the room. I hadn't thought about the need for practice at a range. I was just thinking about going to work, routines, open or concealed.
Seriously, I'm really not trying to be snarky. Thank you for helping me understand.
-
So as long as he killed and ate his friend, he was covered ;)?
In Europe, it is either eat the kill, or start a "lorry ban."
It also puts migrants to work, since most that arrive do not work as it is. They go straight from the border, to the Dole as they say in Merry Olde.
-
You forget that the primary purpose of the protected, enumerated RKBA being protected and enumerated is to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government.
Absolutely untrue. The RKBA derives from the natural right of individual self-defense. This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it.
No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right. Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO, specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.
-
No it wouldn't have. But you continue to deal in what if's and good intentions that lead to nowhere.
Why not? Police more than 30 times came to Cruz's door in response to complaints. A GVRO could have stripped of his killing machine.
Laws allowing GVROs deserve the support of responsible gunowners - they focus on bad actors, not the law abiding.
-
Absolutely untrue. The RKBA derives from the natural right of individual self-defense. This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it.
No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right. Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO, specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.
The why does it say:
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.
You can pretend all you want. But the 2nd Amendment and the related federalist papers make it clear they wanted the ability of the "people" to be able to stand up to the federal standing army. Which also goes to say the arms should not be limited to slow, small caliber hunting.
-
The why does it say:
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.
You can pretend all you want. But the 2nd Amendment and the related federalist papers make it clear they wanted the ability of the "people" to be able to stand up to the federal standing army. Which also goes to say the arms should not be limited to slow, small caliber hunting.
Here's what I think is the correct answer, @thackney. I understand, respectfully, that you will disagree.
The natural right is the right to self-defense, including that of home and property. Justuce Scalia, I think, understood that, and that is why his landmark Heller decision held, for the first time in the history of our Republic, that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Now I understand that the Heller decision was, of course, made in the context of the Second Amendment. If you read the opinion, you'll be astonished at the trouble Scalia had to go to, to reach that interpretation. The Second Amendment is worded in a very peculiar way. It is not worded like that other Amendments describing the rights of Americans. It has a predicate clause about a well-regulated militia, and it - uniquely for the Constitution, I believe - uses the word "infringed".
I don't think the Second Amendment addresses the natural right at all. It talks of ensuring the resources (the men and arms) necessary for the defense of the Republic (the "free state"). I'll go out on a limb here - I think the Constitutional is as textually silent about the natural right of individual self defense as it is about the natural right of individual privacy, which is what undergirds the hated right of abortion.
I hail Scalia for discerning the missing piece of the Constitution - that we have the natural right to defend ourselves as individuals, and the government cannot us deny us that right. I don't think the Second Amendment ever got us there. I think the Second Amendment, on its face, is concerned with the collective defense, not individual self defense. And because of that, I do not for a minute believe it bars the registration, licensure and insurance of firearms. To the contrary, I believe it anticipates it.
-
Here's what I think is the correct answer, @thackney. I understand, respectfully, that you will disagree.
The natural right is the right to self-defense, including that of home and property. Justuce Scalia, I think, understood that, and that is why his landmark Heller decision held, for the first time in the history of our Republic, that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Now I understand that the Heller decision was, of course, made in the context of the Second Amendment. If you read the opinion, you'll be astonished at the trouble Scalia had to go to, to reach that interpretation. The Second Amendment is worded in a very peculiar way. It is not worded like that other Amendments describing the rights of Americans. It has a predicate clause about a well-regulated militia, and it - uniquely for the Constitution, I believe - uses the word "infringed".
I don't think the Second Amendment addresses the natural right at all. It talks of ensuring the resources (the men and arms) necessary for the defense of the Republic (the "free state"). I'll go out on a limb here - I think the Constitutional is as textually silent about the natural right of individual self defense as it is about the natural right of individual privacy, which is what undergirds the hated right of abortion.
I hail Scalia for discerning the missing piece of the Constitution - that we have the natural right to defend ourselves as individuals, and the government cannot us deny us that right. I don't think the Second Amendment ever got us there. I think the Second Amendment, on its face, is concerned with the collective defense, not individual self defense. And because of that, I do not for a minute believe it bars the registration, licensure and insurance of firearms. To the contrary, I believe it anticipates it.
We agree completely, until you made that jump I bolded. Up until that point, it appears the founders intended the peoples arms to be equal, or nearly so, of those owned by the standing army.
Confiscation of arms was the breaking point that caused the colonies to do more than protest, but rather stand and fire upon the British army.
Federalist No. 46 talks specifically about the people being able to raise far more powerful militia than the federal army would every be.
Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
To believe they would want to set the federal system up with the ability to identify and locate those arms is contrary to anything the founders put in writing.
-
This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it.
Wrong again as usual. Resisting tyranny when the government itself became corrupt and despotic is EXACTLY why the Second Amendment was added and why the Founders wrote extensively about the need for the people to bear arms. It was the ULTIMATE check and balance to ensure the People had the ability to put government tyranny down when the other checks and balances in government were corrupted and they failed.
No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right.
You are. On every gun thread, with every stupid and bullshit argument to justify infringement under the color of 'reasonable'.
Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO, specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.
Not surprising you find that the First Amendment specifically contemplates homosexual marriage and abortion rights too. Why not insist that the Second Amendment also specifically grants government infringement to keep and bear arms? You keep spouting bullshit often enough - the emoting gullible will eventually buy into your shit.
-
Why not? Police more than 30 times came to Cruz's door in response to complaints. A GVRO could have stripped of his killing machine.
That's not the fault of the gun...the NRA...too little legislation on gun controls or because we don't have any of the gun grabbing junk you propose.
That falls strictly on law enforcement all the way up to the FBI for not taking the threat the kid posed seriously.
None of what you're proposing would have made a difference if the law enforcement agencies refuse to act on what they know is a threat to the public.
Laws allowing GVROs deserve the support of responsible gunowners - they focus on bad actors, not the law abiding.
As we've see and history gives proof of...your feel good emotionally driven pap leads to more than just focusing on the bad actors...those laws are eventually turned on law abiding citizens as well.
-
Come on. Do you really believe that will make the kids safe? These things happen because evil exists in the world. If you could stop the demons in people's heads you could stop mass shootings. In Sweden they had a school attack and people died. The attacker wielded a sword and knives. Well maybe not as many died. But today it is bump stock. Another day it is another kind of gun or weapon, or perhaps even with a ban another illegal gun with bump stock. Laws don't stop demons.
Wisest words on the thread.
-
If the ACA is known as Obamacare, these should be called Trump Stocks once they are banned.
-
No, you are not required to have liability insurance in almost any activity that can lead to injury. Do you think that should be changed, or just the ones involving guns?
If you think only guns, why is that?
People have liability insurance for their cars. Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools. I don't think it's that uncommon.
-
Why not? Police more than 30 times came to Cruz's door in response to complaints. A GVRO could have stripped of his killing machine.
Laws allowing GVROs deserve the support of responsible gunowners - they focus on bad actors, not the law abiding.
The shooter's mother wouldn't press charges for "elder abuse". But she might have been willing to get a restraining order.
-
People have liability insurance for their cars. Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools. I don't think it's that uncommon.
Mostly, because it is forced upon them by law. What are people going to be required to insure next, power tools?
-
The Second Amendment absolutists have no plan. They want guns, and they want them free of simple requirements of registration and insurance which are commonplace with respect to other useful but inherently dangerous implements.
Oh horseshit. I can walk out to my truck right now, open the sawbox, and find at least 30 implements that are 'inherently dangerous', and suitable for murder. *NONE* of them are registered or insured.
Trump's motivation is likely political. He can see where the GOP's future is headed when, as appears inevitable, the community that demands answers to the senseless violence outnumbers the gun fetishists. Banning bump stocks will solve little, but does present the illusion of "doing something". Coming out in favor of gun violence restraining orders will likely do more, especially since responsible gun owners can see the value of such focused intervention.
More bullshit. I don't know ANYONE who actually knows guns that would consider this to be 'valuable focused intervention'. Because anyone who actually knows how a semi-automatic rifle works knows inherently that this does nothing at all.
But the current battle is political. The Dems see the tide is turning after Las Vegas and Parkland. The GOP needs to respond by rejecting absolutism and working to ensure that gun regulations are reasonable, limited and efficacious.
There is no such thing.
-
The key word is "ACTION".
Riiight. DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, Even if it's wrong. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Mostly, because it is forced upon them by law. What are people going to be required to insure next, power tools?
You don't think automobile insurance is necessary?
-
People have liability insurance for their cars.
To drive them on public roads.
Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools. I don't think it's that uncommon.
Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool? No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.
But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry. How do you imagine that would be enforced?
My kids do rodeo. Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt. Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.
And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm? It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.
-
To drive them on public roads.
Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool? No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.
But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry. How do you imagine that would be enforced?
My kids do rodeo. Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt. Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.
And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm? It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.
@thackney and as I noted earlier...state insurance regulators could make the cost of a "gun insurance policy" so expensive it prohibits most people from ownership...creating a defacto gun ban.
-
To drive them on public roads.
Yep, that is why I was thinking about insurance for carrying guns out in public. Some of the problems with that idea were noted above.
Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool? No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.
Actually, here in CA I think you are. Definitely if you own a rental property with a pool.
But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry. How do you imagine that would be enforced?
I suppose it would be like in an auto; if you're driving and a LEO asks to see your proof of insurance, you show him.
My kids do rodeo. Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt. Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.
And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm? It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.
I know with "dangerous" activities, participants often have to sign liability wavers. Makes sense to me.
I was mainly asking about "gun insurance" in case there's a hunting accident and the injured person needs medical care, physio, etc.
-
You don't think automobile insurance is necessary?
I don’t believe the government should be able to mandate what you have to purchase, but we’re way beyond that now, after the Obamacare decisions.
-
People have liability insurance for their cars. Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools. I don't think it's that uncommon.
Cars are normally operated on the public roads. Cars that are not operated on public roads do not require insurance.
Pools have liability because lawyers have forced that upon people. Pools don't travel onto other peoples property...
What about a chain saw? Nail gun? Welding equipment? Knives, hammers, any number of other things. How about insurance for the pain medication you might buy that could get in the wrong hands...
Does insurance stop people from driving drunk or without a license? Do people who ignore the law buy insurance?
No.
Name one case where insurance might have prevented a school shooting or any other criminal activity where the law is ignored?
You are just putting up another impediment to exorcising a basic constitutional right without any actual affect on criminal behavior.
-
@thackney and as I noted earlier...state insurance regulators could make the cost of a "gun insurance policy" so expensive it prohibits most people from ownership...creating a defacto gun ban.
And I totally agree, this could be an issue. Some states already have really expensive car insurance.
-
I was mainly asking about "gun insurance" in case there's a hunting accident and the injured person needs medical care, physio, etc.
The closest you can get to something like that is the insurance policies offered by USCCA and the NRA's Carry Guard. Those are mainly to protect a gun owner in the event they use their weapon in self defense. My USCCA policy provides $500K for legal fees money for me while I'm in court in case I'm in a jurisdiction that has a gun grabbing DA or police chief...and up to $100K for bail money.
To the best of my knowledge there is no insurance to protect you in the event of a negligent discharge...which is what an accidental shooting really is.
Nor should there be.
-
And I totally agree, this could be an issue. Some states already have really expensive car insurance.
And the gun hating states already have impossibly high fees for carry permits trying to dissuade people from buying guns. Seattle taxes every individual bullet you buy in a box. California has slapped some very high taxes outside normal sales taxes on the purchase of a firearm.
There is a clear history of abuse of the law and the 2A by states already. Adding this to their arsenal of anti 2A measures isn't a good idea.
-
It takes a year and a background check up the wazoo to get a concealed carry permit in Dutchess County NY. If you need to carry because of an imminent threat, you’re as good as dead.
Not so here. And I might add that this bump stock furor really won't effect me. Montana won't honor it for manufacturers in state selling to Montanans.
But you are all too willing to try to take rights away from me because you are already under draconian laws. You should be thinking the other way around.
And I'll beg to differ. No matter where I am, if I need a gun, I will go get it, and I will have it very quickly. For all your silly laws, I will bet good money that I can go down to your town and buy anything the hell I want, right off the street.
I stand by my statement. Post Parkland Florida, a bump stock ban would be both symbolic and meaningless. Look, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate voters and squishy libs. They need their meaningless symbolism, it comforts them. Who are we to deny these Americans and potential cross over voters?
NO. it is NOT meaningless. It is legally limiting the fire rate, necessarily. That effects trigger systems, that effects customization.
-
Trump won't gain one vote from this...the people whining aren't going to vote for him anyway. All he did was piss off conservatives.
THAT'S A FACT.
-
Would you support an insurance requirement as part of a carry license?
LOL! Oh HELL NO.
-
Cars are normally operated on the public roads. Cars that are not operated on public roads do not require insurance.
Pools have liability because lawyers have forced that upon people. Pools don't travel onto other peoples property...
What about a chain saw? Nail gun? Welding equipment? Knives, hammers, any number of other things. How about insurance for the pain medication you might buy that could get in the wrong hands...
Does insurance stop people from driving drunk or without a license? Do people who ignore the law buy insurance?
The reason we have car insurance, is to help the victim if we are at fault in an accident. That's the ONLY reason I was asking about insurance -- in case of some kind of accident. I'm not being critical; I was just curious how this is handled. If there is a hunting accident, wouldn't insurance be helpful to pay for the injured person's medical expenses? Or repair a window or something if it gets broken? It just seems like it would be helpful rather than having to pay out of pocket.
I'm not making any proposal at all. I just know we live in a very litigious society (I'm sure that's 9/10 of the swimming pool coverage). And sometimes someone is legitimately injured.
-
What about if it was for carrying outside your home?
NO. That's the very same thing as requiring it.
-
People have liability insurance for their cars. Homeowners often have liability insurance for their swimming pools. I don't think it's that uncommon.
@LauraTXNM
What would the purpose of the insurance to be other than increase the cost of exercising a Constitutionally protected right?
Would insurance have paid for this guys actions? Would it have stopped him? If I legally use my firearm for self defense should my insurance have to pay for the attackers injuries?
What insurance company would sell policies under these circumstances?
If you're only talking accidental or negligent use of firearms then you are saying its appropriate to force 100 million gun owners to buy insurance because approximately 3,800 people made a mistake.
Then theres the 31,959 accidental deaths caused by falls. Or the 42,032 caused by accidental poisoning. Just curious if you think we should have to carry insurance for those other causes of the 135,928 accidental deaths as well. (less than 34,000 are from motor vehicles)
-
Again the answer is no if it's forced upon us as a requirement to have a permit.
Heck, I'm against the permit in the first place.
-
So we can't be required to show a govt provided ID in order to vote.
But forcing people to jump through all kinds of hoops to own a firearm is ok?
Do I have that correct?
-
@thackney and as I noted earlier...state insurance regulators could make the cost of a "gun insurance policy" so expensive it prohibits most people from ownership...creating a defacto gun ban.
And once tyrant-enablers like Jazzy get some kind of registration and insurance mandate to own a gun, the moment the next nut job uses a gun in a mass murder event (like all the felons in Chicago that miraculously are able to obtain firearms) - these same people will 'scream enough is enough' and demand confiscation and that only government agents are permitted to have weapons.
Because that is where ALL of this goes. Everything being discussed is simply how many increments do we have to go through in order to achieve the defacto abolishment of the 2nd Amendment?
And as always - the Elites will be exempt from the laws they push on us little people.
-
And once tyrant-enablers like Jazzy get some kind of registration and insurance mandate to own a gun, the moment the next nut job uses a gun in a mass murder event (like all the felons in Chicago that miraculously are able to obtain firearms) - these same people will 'scream enough is enough' and demand confiscation and that only government agents are permitted to have weapons.
Because that is where ALL of this goes. Everything being discussed is simply how many increments do we have to go through in order to achieve the defacto abolishment of the 2nd Amendment?
And as always - the Elites will be exempt from the laws they push on us little people.
You nailed it sir.
-
So we can't be required to show a govt provided ID in order to vote.
But forcing people to jump through all kinds of hoops to own a firearm is ok?
Do I have that correct?
You are tracking.
-
So we can't be required to show a govt provided ID in order to vote.
But forcing people to jump through all kinds of hoops to own a firearm is ok?
Do I have that correct?
Excellent point.
And YES - because voter fraud is an inalienable and uninfringible right for the Left.
-
So we can't be required to show a govt provided ID in order to vote.
But forcing people to jump through all kinds of hoops to own a firearm is ok?
Do I have that correct?
Yes, and the "logic" was brought to you by the same people that thought it was a good idea to fine people who can't afford to purchase health insurance.
-
I was mainly asking about "gun insurance" in case there's a hunting accident and the injured person needs medical care, physio, etc.
So basically, take the ability of gun ownership and use... the ability to defend, away from the poor.
-
I was mainly asking about "gun insurance" in case there's a hunting accident and the injured person needs medical care, physio, etc.
@LauraTXNM
From what I've experienced most hunting accidents do not actually involve the gun. They involve falling, over exertion or vehicle accidents.
-
@LauraTXNM
From what I've experienced most hunting accidents do not actually involve the gun. They involve falling, over exertion or vehicle accidents.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16681988_1432412973485553_202025397057748927_n.jpg?oh=311e930da22e968e67a690960a9868ef&oe=5B16C058)
-
@LauraTXNM
From what I've experienced most hunting accidents do not actually involve the gun. They involve falling, over exertion or vehicle accidents.
Thanks. That's more what I was trying to ask -- if someone like Dick Cheney's friend gets shot in a hunting accident, how do you all deal with it? Does Dick Cheney just pay the medical expenses out of pocket? If I hit someone with my car, I can pay personally or put it on my insurance.
-
Sorry if I derailed your all's discussion. I wasn't asking about insurance because of the FL shooter. I was really just curious if it ever comes up.
-
LOL. Firearm insurance. This will create a whole new industry for the government; providing subsidies for democrat voters who can't afford the insurance.
In Florida auto insurance is not required if you escrow $100,000. Curious if the insurance proponents would find that just as acceptable.
-
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16681988_1432412973485553_202025397057748927_n.jpg?oh=311e930da22e968e67a690960a9868ef&oe=5B16C058)
Did you hear about the picture of Rob Porter’s ex-wife with the black guy?
-
Thanks. That's more what I was trying to ask -- if someone like Dick Cheney's friend gets shot in a hunting accident, how do you all deal with it? Does Dick Cheney just pay the medical expenses out of pocket? If I hit someone with my car, I can pay personally or put it on my insurance.
@LauraTXNM
How do you handle it if you injure someone with any tool? Either they pay for it themselves, ask you to pay or they can seek remedy through the civil courts.
As far as I know my health insurance will pay if I am accidentally shot, knifed, clubbed, beaten with a squirrel or fall and break my leg.
-
LOL. Firearm insurance. This will create a whole new industry for the government; providing subsidies for democrat voters who can't afford the insurance.
In Florida auto insurance is not required if you escrow $100,000. Curious if the insurance proponents would find that just as acceptable.
That's an interesting way to handle auto insurance. I wonder if other states have that option. I sincerely doubt CA does.
-
Sorry if I derailed your all's discussion. I wasn't asking about insurance because of the FL shooter. I was really just curious if it ever comes up.
@LauraTXNM
Insurance is a trigger word in firearm circles. Its been a tactic gun control fanatics have tried for years to increase the cost of firearm ownership.
(http://www.happytrails.org/_images/trigger/07-sm-Illustration%20Photo.jpg)
-
@LauraTXNM
Insurance is a trigger word in firearm circles. Its been a tactic gun control fanatics have tried for years to increase the cost of firearm ownership.
(http://www.happytrails.org/_images/trigger/07-sm-Illustration%20Photo.jpg)
Thanks for explaining. I was beginning to get that idea ;). I guess I’ll just walk away now.
-
@LauraTXNM
How do you handle it if you injure someone with any tool? Either they pay for it themselves, ask you to pay or they can seek remedy through the civil courts.
As far as I know my health insurance will pay if I am accidentally shot, knifed, clubbed, beaten with a squirrel or fall and break my leg.
Last response, I promise. When a kid hit my sister with his car, his insurance paid for her physical therapy. Homeowner’s insurance can cover household accidents with tools.
Anyway, have a nice afternoon!
-
That's an interesting way to handle auto insurance. I wonder if other states have that option. I sincerely doubt CA does.
In Texas, you are required to show Proof of Financial Responsibility. Most people carry auto insurance to cover that.
-
@LauraTXNM
How do you handle it if you injure someone with any tool? Either they pay for it themselves, ask you to pay or they can seek remedy through the civil courts.
As far as I know my health insurance will pay if I am accidentally shot, knifed, clubbed, beaten with a squirrel or fall and break my leg.
...beaten with a squirrel?
That weapon is likely to damage the attacker as much as the attackee.
-
That's an interesting way to handle auto insurance. I wonder if other states have that option. I sincerely doubt CA does.
Nearly all, if not all, states have this option.
http://jurisco.com/california-auto-insurance-bond/ (http://jurisco.com/california-auto-insurance-bond/)
In fact, all drivers in California could choose to post a surety bond in lieu of carrying insurance. In California it falls under the umbrella of Financial Responsibility. This means that all drivers are required to have proof that they can cover damages up to $35,000. Under California Vehicle Code, Section 38750 drivers can choose between three options to meet this requirement: Carry traditional insurance, post cash with the state or to procure a auto insurance bond with a licensed bond agency.
-
That's an interesting way to handle auto insurance. I wonder if other states have that option. I sincerely doubt CA does.
I believe CA allows someone to post bond that they can self insure.
-
Nearly all, if not all, states have this option.
http://jurisco.com/california-auto-insurance-bond/ (http://jurisco.com/california-auto-insurance-bond/)
In fact, all drivers in California could choose to post a surety bond in lieu of carrying insurance. In California it falls under the umbrella of Financial Responsibility. This means that all drivers are required to have proof that they can cover damages up to $35,000. Under California Vehicle Code, Section 38750 drivers can choose between three options to meet this requirement: Carry traditional insurance, post cash with the state or to procure a auto insurance bond with a licensed bond agency.
I should have read further down thread before responding... But thank you for confirming it.
-
Absolutely untrue. The RKBA derives from the natural right of individual self-defense. This nonsense about overthrowing the government and killing federal agents may give INVAR wood, but it's not the purpose of the Second Amendment. The 2A is concerned with ensuring the men and material necessary to defend the nascent United States, not to overthrow it.
No one is advocating regulations that would infringe upon the natural right. Registration (if not insurance) is, IMO, specifically contemplated under the plain language of the 2A.
A well regulated (controlled) militia (army) being necessary to the security of a free state (you have to have one to defend it from outsiders, but it has to be controlled to keep it from taking over) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people, armed, are the ultimate check on government power, as projected by the standing federal army. If you had read and comprehended the Federalist Papers, you would know this. It is that simple. All this symantic contortionism to try to shoehorn a right of the people into some sort of reserved for the Militia only right is just nonsense.
Recalling that the just powers of Governments instituted among men for the purpose of securing their rights are derived from the consent of the governed, when those governments no longer pursue that aim but instead seek to destroy those rights, it is the duty of men to alter or abolish them, and keeping that ability is what is sacrosanct. It isn't for the purpose of overthrowing a legitimate government, as defined in those terms, but for the purpose of keeping that government legitimate.
Registration is a precursor and a valuable tool for confiscation, and is an imminent threat to the Right. You keep babbling about "registration and insurance" as if that will make it any more reasonable: it will not. Firearms account for some of the mruders in the US annually, but a variety of objects from miscellaneous blunt instruments including everything from tire irons to rocks and common hand tools to edged devices, to ligatures of various sorts, to fists and feet are used to take the lives of other people. Are you going to have women register their pantyhose because they have been used to murder people too? Every length of rope, plank, or bar of metal? Every kitchen knife? Get real, quit pissing around with feelgood nonsense, and focus on the cultural problems which have made these crimes more common.
Reinstate the death penalty for Murder, maybe there won't be so much of it, and a lot fewer repeat offenders.
Put God back in the schools, mainly because the idea that you might be held responsible for your actions by a higher power acts as a deterrent, even among those who profess not to believe. People have been as free to ignore Him as they do their Algebra lessons, only it isn't on their report card.
Tone down the rampant slaughter in media that desensitizes people to the idea of taking a life, and the attitude of polarization so common in our culture today which is all or nothing to the extent of letting something go or killing someone over it with no in between--and before you even attribute that attitude to supporters of the RKBA here, kindly keep in mind that we have already put up with a tremendous number of infringements codified in some 20,000 laws molesting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, we have just hit our limit. Not so much "none" as "no more".
And last, but far from least, restore the sanctity of that most fundamental Right, the Right to Life. When the most innocent and helpless among us are slaughtered without compunction in numbers which outstrip the most diabolical of regimes in history, for the 'crime' of being inconvenient, then the door is opened to the slaughter of anyone for which any reason can be contrived, no matter how thin that justification.
-
You don't think automobile insurance is necessary?
The guy who hit my work vehicle didn't think so, nor a license plate, registration, title to the vehicle, etc. That leaves me eating the expense of repairs. Despite the law, people are driving all over without it.
People who have things carry insurance so they don't lose those things if they can be sued. People who don't have much, don't generally care.Besides, what makes anyone think that these devices, weapons, etc. won't be available to criminals? If you can get a few keys of Coke or Meth in the country, you can get guns in, too (real full auto capable firearms available on the global market for a pittance) and insurance laws aren't even going to be on your radar. This stuff only affects those who already abide by the law, not the budding criminal.
Besides, what insurance company would pay off how much for 17 lives lost? It won't bring anyone back, so it turns into placing a value on human life, which means at some point one innocent person's life would be worth more than another, and do you really want to go there?
-
To drive them on public roads.
Are you required to have liability insurance to own a pool? No one is saying you shouldn't be able to buy it.
But it is completely different to say you have to have insurance own or carry. How do you imagine that would be enforced?
My kids do rodeo. Big, dangerous animals; participants and bystanders can and do get hurt. Mountain climbing, trail riding, the list is endless.
And do you believe their won't be exemption clauses for intentional harm? It would not even apply to events we are concerned about.
"...acts of war, declared or undeclared..." I have little doubt "Civil Unrest" could be stuffed into that category, and no insurance covers a person insure who is engaged in a criminal act (read the fine print in your auto policy).
-
A well regulated (controlled) militia (army) being necessary to the security of a free state (you have to have one to defend it from outsiders, but it has to be controlled to keep it from taking over) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people, armed, are the ultimate check on government power, as projected by the standing federal army. If you had read and comprehended the Federalist Papers, you would know this. It is that simple. All this symantic contortionism to try to shoehorn a right of the people into some sort of reserved for the Militia only right is just nonsense.
Recalling that the just powers of Governments instituted among men for the purpose of securing their rights are derived from the consent of the governed, when those governments no longer pursue that aim but instead seek to destroy those rights, it is the duty of men to alter or abolish them, and keeping that ability is what is sacrosanct. It isn't for the purpose of overthrowing a legitimate government, as defined in those terms, but for the purpose of keeping that government legitimate.
Registration is a precursor and a valuable tool for confiscation, and is an imminent threat to the Right. You keep babbling about "registration and insurance" as if that will make it any more reasonable: it will not. Firearms account for some of the mruders in the US annually, but a variety of objects from miscellaneous blunt instruments including everything from tire irons to rocks and common hand tools to edged devices, to ligatures of various sorts, to fists and feet are used to take the lives of other people. Are you going to have women register their pantyhose because they have been used to murder people too? Every length of rope, plank, or bar of metal? Every kitchen knife? Get real, quit pissing around with feelgood nonsense, and focus on the cultural problems which have made these crimes more common.
Justices Thomas and Sotomoyor recently (in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers) wrote dueling concurrences on how to interpret a statute. Sotomoyor, like you do, thinks a statute's plain meaning (or, as here, the words to the Constitution) can be ignored and its "purpose" discerned by reference to Senate and Committee reports (or, as you contend, by the Federalist papers). Justice Thomas, on the other hand, argued that the Court is "governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended".
Justice Thomas reveals why your insistence that the Second Amendment's purpose be gleaned from the Federalist papers is nonsense. The Constitution, like a statute, means what it says. The RKBA, as enunciated in the 2A , cannot be divorced from the predicate clause, and its plain meaning is that the right is a collective right, for the purpose of securing the men and materials needed to comprise the contemplated citizen militia needed to secure the "free state". It is by no means a license for revolution, as you contend, certainly not in the context of a Constitutional Republic.
The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms derives from the natural right of individual self defense of home and property. That right wasn't confirmed for the first two centuries of the Republic, until Justice Scalia's decision in Heller. A brilliant and necessary decision, but entirely inconsistent with the 2A's predicate clause.
It is my view that the individual right does NOT derive from the 2A, but from the same "penumbras and emanations" that led earlier Courts to find individual, natural rights of privacy and self-determination, and ultimately, the right to abortion.
Both the abortion right and the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense are equally susceptible to regulation. The rights cannot be denied, but they can be made subject to the community's reasonable rules. In short, if you contend the community can ban abortion after 20 weeks, then the community can equally require that your guns be registered and insured.
-
Justices Thomas and Sotomoyor recently (in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers) wrote dueling concurrences on how to interpret a statute. Sotomoyor, like you do, thinks a statute's plain meaning (or, as here, the words to the Constitution) can be ignored and its "purpose" discerned by reference to Senate and Committee reports (or, as you contend, by the Federalist papers). Justice Thomas, on the other hand, argued that the Court is "governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended".
Justice Thomas reveals why your insistence that the Second Amendment's purpose be gleaned from the Federalist papers is nonsense. The Constitution, like a statute, means what it says. The RKBA, as enunciated in the 2A cannot be divorced from the predicate clause, and its plain meaning is that the right is a collective right, for the purpose of securing the men and materials needed to comprise the militia needed to secure the "free state". It is by no means a license for revolution, as you contend, certainly not in the context of a Constitutional Republic.
The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms derives from the natural right of individual self defense. That right wasn't confirmed for the first two centuries of the Republic, until Justice Scalia's decision in Heller. A brilliant and necessary decision, but entirely inconsistent with the 2A's predicate clause.
It is my view that the individual right does NOT derive from the 2A, but from the same "penumbras and emanations" that led earlier Courts to find individual, natural rights of privacy and self-determination, and ultimately, the right to abortion.
Both the abortion right and the individual right to keep arms for self-defense are equally susceptible to regulation. The rights cannot be denied, but they can be made subject to the community's reasonable rules. In short, if you contend the community can ban abortion after 20 weeks, then the community can equally require that your guns be registered and insured.
Amazing how you never post links to this stuff you've supposedly read. :whistle:
-
Amazing how you never post links to this stuff you've supposedly read. :whistle:
It would, obviously, help the handicapped, but isn’t necessary to the gist of the argument.
-
Besides, what insurance company would pay off how much for 17 lives lost? It won't bring anyone back, so it turns into placing a value on human life, which means at some point one innocent person's life would be worth more than another, and do you really want to go there?
And that's why Hillary and other gun grabbers have been pushing to give survivors and the family members of those killed the right/ability to sue gun manufacturers. They want to soak them for large emotionally driven civil court penalties in wrongful death lawsuits and run them out of business that way.
The attack on the Second Amendment is a multi pronged attack.
-
Amazing how you never post links to this stuff you've supposedly read. :whistle:
I don't read everything I read on the internet, you know. I was quoting from a WSJ editorial from this morning, entitled "Thomas v. Sotomayor", regarding statutory interpretation that I read on the train coming to work this morning. You know, newsprint.
Go ahead and look for the editorial on WSJ's website; it will be behind a paywall.
-
It would, obviously, help the handicapped, but isn’t necessary to the gist of the argument.
No actually it does. He likes to cherry pick pieces of the Constitution...provide only parts of certain rulings that back up his Liberal world view and present them to us as if it's the entire document.
There are some credibility issues with his wild claims about the courts backing up his gun grabbing view of the world.
So yes he should post a link on stuff like this.
-
I don't read everything I read on the internet, you know. I was quoting from a WSJ editorial from this morning, entitled "Thomas v. Sotomayor", regarding statutory interpretation that I read on the train coming to work this morning. You know, newsprint.
Go ahead and look for the editorial on WSJ's website; it will be behind a paywall.
How convenient.
-
How convenient.
Here you go, and you're welcome Thomas v. Sotomayor (https://www.wsj.com/articles/thomas-vs-sotomayor-1519259115)
-
No actually it does. He likes to cherry pick pieces of the Constitution...provide only parts of certain rulings that back up his Liberal world view and present them to us as if it's the entire document.
There are some credibility issues with his wild claims about the courts backing up his gun grabbing view of the world.
So yes he should post a link on stuff like this.
@txradioguy
Thats what lawyers are trained to do. Its also what makes a 'living Constitution' so dangerous as we've seen.
-
@txradioguy
Thats what lawyers are trained to do. Its also what makes a 'living Constitution' so dangerous as we've seen.
Exactly!
-
@txradioguy
Thats what lawyers are trained to do. Its also what makes a 'living Constitution' so dangerous as we've seen.
You cannot get to a RKBA for individual self defense without a "living Constitution". Arguably, the right didn't exist until the Heller decision. Be careful what you wish for.
-
No actually it does. He likes to cherry pick pieces of the Constitution...provide only parts of certain rulings that back up his Liberal world view and present them to us as if it's the entire document.
There are some credibility issues with his wild claims about the courts backing up his gun grabbing view of the world.
So yes he should post a link on stuff like this.
On this there is no cherry-picking, except by those who think the only right in the Constitution is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons. In other words, it’s the accessories to murder who are cherry-picking.
-
On this there is no cherry-picking, except by those who think the only right in the Constitution is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons.
Your gun grabber stance is duly noted.
No one here or anywhere has said the Constitution "is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons." That's you with your panties in a twist being totally hysterical.
Take a Midol. Hell take two.
If what you said were true...then murder with any kind of firearm would be legal. It's not. it's called murder and there are rules to punish people who think they can do "anything they want" with a gun.
As is repeatedly noted and constantly ignored by you and Jazzy there are already 20,000 laws on the books in the U.S. concerning the regulation use and implementation of firearms above and beyond what is outlined in the 2nd Amendment.
WTF is one more law going to accomplish? What is it going to prevent?
Nothing. Zip zero nada.
All it will do is allow those of you that throw logic out the window and operate strictly on irrational emotions and "feelings" to feel good that you did "something" even when it accomplishes nothing.
In other words, it’s the accessories to murder who are cherry-picking.
Oh so now anyone ho supports the NRA...GOA...USCCA and believes in the 2nd Amendment is an accessory to murder?
Typical gun grabber nonsense that leads anyone who reads that steaming pile of BS to believe that you got lost on your way to DU.
Because that's the kind of knee jerk crap the Bloomberg sponsored Everytown for Gun Safety...Nancy Pelosi...and Bernie Sanders would throw out.
Nothing factual nothing with even a kernel of truth...just hysterical crap.
You should be ashamed to say something like that. But we all know you're not.
-
You cannot get to a RKBA for individual self defense without a "living Constitution". Arguably, the right didn't exist until the Heller decision. Be careful what you wish for.
@Jazzhead
I have about 1000 quotes from the guys who wrote the Constitution that would beg to differ.
In actuality the right existed before the Constitution was written and its only through weasel lawyers that the laws around it have been called into question.
-
Justices Thomas and Sotomoyor recently (in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers) wrote dueling concurrences on how to interpret a statute. Sotomoyor, like you do, thinks a statute's plain meaning (or, as here, the words to the Constitution) can be ignored and its "purpose" discerned by reference to Senate and Committee reports (or, as you contend, by the Federalist papers). Justice Thomas, on the other hand, argued that the Court is "governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended".
Justice Thomas reveals why your insistence that the Second Amendment's purpose be gleaned from the Federalist papers is nonsense. The Constitution, like a statute, means what it says. The RKBA, as enunciated in the 2A , cannot be divorced from the predicate clause, and its plain meaning is that the right is a collective right, for the purpose of securing the men and materials needed to comprise the contemplated citizen militia needed to secure the "free state". It is by no means a license for revolution, as you contend, certainly not in the context of a Constitutional Republic.
The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms derives from the natural right of individual self defense of home and property. That right wasn't confirmed for the first two centuries of the Republic, until Justice Scalia's decision in Heller. A brilliant and necessary decision, but entirely inconsistent with the 2A's predicate clause.
It is my view that the individual right does NOT derive from the 2A, but from the same "penumbras and emanations" that led earlier Courts to find individual, natural rights of privacy and self-determination, and ultimately, the right to abortion.
Both the abortion right and the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense are equally susceptible to regulation. The rights cannot be denied, but they can be made subject to the community's reasonable rules. In short, if you contend the community can ban abortion after 20 weeks, then the community can equally require that your guns be registered and insured.
You would proclaim that Original Intent can be best determined by the thinking of modern justices than the stated intent of those who advocated the very Amendment we discuss. Poppycock. If you want to know what the founders meant you need go no farther than the writings of the advocates of the Constitution, nor any farther than the plain English of the Amendment itself. The Federalist Papers stated the reason for the protection of the Right, that being the very protection of the Republic. As for how protected, the language is clear:
"...the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
"Of the people" meaning an individual Right (as in all other cases where that reservation is made in the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and "shall not be infringed" (not "may", but "SHALL", implying a more strict standard of compliance) meaning kept without encumbrance.
It IS that simple.
There is no codified "right to abortion", nor would such exist which would fly in the face of the proclaimed unalienable Rights to LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document which laid out the very justification for the break with the English Crown, nor can the argument be made that, in an age when many children were lost to disease or misfortune at an early age, and in which those children were valued additions to the family that any "right to slaughter the unborn" would in any be found in original intent, or as one of those Rights granted by the selfsame Nature's God who granted all others.
That alleged "right", which contradicts the unalienable Right to Life declared in the Declaration, is wholly a fabrication of the Court, and not a "right" expressed anywhere in nature where other creatures fight to the death to ensure their progeny.
How do you possibly make the argument that the codified and protected, enumerated Right to freely own the tools needed to protect against tyranny and if necessary, to kill those who would take life or liberty can be infringed on the one hand, and then in the same response advocate the unfettered alleged "right" to slaughter innocent children, just at an earlier age?
There is a serious cognitive disconnect present in those arguments coupled, and a contradiction the Founders would not have tolerated.
-
And that's why Hillary and other gun grabbers have been pushing to give survivors and the family members of those killed the right/ability to sue gun manufacturers. They want to soak them for large emotionally driven civil court penalties in wrongful death lawsuits and run them out of business that way.
The attack on the Second Amendment is a multi pronged attack.
By that logic I could sue an auto manufacturer every time some jackass driver hits one of my vehicles with one made by them. Those are just two-vehicle accidents (most often, impacts with my parked vehicle), and we haven't even touched on the jihad vehicle attack phenomena with multiple pedestrian victims.
-
@Jazzhead
In actuality the right existed before the Constitution was written and its only through weasel lawyers that the laws around it have been called into question.
Correct - the right to defend one's home and property is a natural right. The 2A doesn't address this natural, individual right - it is concerned with something else altogether: ensuring the men and arms needed for a citizens' militia to help secure the nascent Republic. The predicate clause makes this clear - by its plain meaning - that the beneficiary of the 2A is the "free state" and the collective security of the people.
The 2A, in my view, has little if anything to say about the natural right. That right - as well as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that underpin the right to abortion - indeed existed before the Constitution was written.
The Heller decision - finally, after two centuries - affirms the existence of the natural right. But it also makes clear that the right, while it cannot be denied, is subject to the community's regulation. Licensure, registration and insurance, reasonably applied, are all perfectly Constitutional. Just as regulation of abortion is Constitutional, so long as the right itself is not effectively denied.
As you know, most gun regulation takes place at the state and local level, not the federal level. Some of that regulation may well be unconstitutional under the Heller standard, but it is not the 2A which prevents such regulation. That ought to be perfectly obvious given centuries of state and local regulation and restriction of the gun right.
-
On this there is no cherry-picking, except by those who think the only right in the Constitution is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons. In other words, it’s the accessories to murder who are cherry-picking.
I presume by "accessories to murder who are cherry-picking" you are referring to the pro-abortion crowd, because I certainly hope you are not referring to pro-2nd Amendment Briefers that way.
-
You cannot get to a RKBA for individual self defense without a "living Constitution". Arguably, the right didn't exist until the Heller decision. Be careful what you wish for.
The right to self defense and the RKBA were such a solid bit of common law that dated back to the Magna Carta that they were not believed to be needed to be codified. It was understood in the days of the founders.
It is only with the absolute contortions of logic in the quest for tyranny that the thought that people did not have a Right to arm themselves in order to defend themselves has crept in. Keep in mind, the court may go through the motions of granting Rights, but it does not, in fact, do so. Nor, for that matter does the Constitution or Bill of Rights: those Rights are unalienable, and exist no matter what the Court says or does not. The existence of the court is to determine if those Rights have been infringed and whether a law is compatible with those enumerated rights, not to invent new rights. That there was no ruling by the court to affirm the existence of the right to arm for self-defense is more a matter of that being well enough understood that no ruling was needed until the laws of the Federal District infringed upon that Right. In that sense, Heller did not create a Right, merely affirmed one which existed long before the ruling was made necessary by the actions of those making the laws for the District.
Again, I'll pull out the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
No where in the Constitution is the power delegated to the Government to infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for any reason short of Due Process associated with a criminal conviction (and even that is arguable), nor is that Right restricted, therefore the RKBA for self defense (as well as defense against tyranny) exists and is retained by the people.
-
And that's why Hillary and other gun grabbers have been pushing to give survivors and the family members of those killed the right/ability to sue gun manufacturers. They want to soak them for large emotionally driven civil court penalties in wrongful death lawsuits and run them out of business that way.
The attack on the Second Amendment is a multi pronged attack.
I don't support such laws; they are clearly "work-arounds" because of the failure of libs to pass laws they want to directly regulate the transfer of ownership of firearms. Everyone knows what a gun is and what it does. It is ridiculous for a manufacturer to be able to be sued for making a lawful product that is used as intended. Sue the dealer for failure to background-check a purchaser, and extend the cause of action to private sales under a strict liability theory. THAT would be efficacious and, IMO, just. But sue the manufacturer? That's absurd.
-
You know what is coming - banning of information. Case in point- The Anarchists Cookbook.
I have often asked the libtards i know what they would do with people like me. Give me a piece of steeland some basic machine tools and I can make a firearm, most of us on this list have enough knowledge to make an IED out of household ingredients or a trip tot he big box store or hardware store. Heck YouTube has several dozen videos on making thermite.
-
I don't support such laws; they are clearly "work-arounds" because of the failure of libs to pass laws they want to directly regulate the transfer of ownership of firearms. Everyone knows what a gun is and what it does. It is ridiculous for a manufacturer to be able to be sued for making a lawful product that is used as intended. Sue the dealer for failure to background-check a purchaser, and extend the cause of action to private sales under a strict liability theory. THAT would be efficacious and, IMO, just. But sue the manufacturer? That's absurd.
What dealer is selling without running the NCIS check? It has proved to be the Feds that fall down here by not entering the info into the NCIS database, such as Devin Patrick Kelley.
-
I have often asked the libtards i know what they would do with people like me. Give me a piece of steeland some basic machine tools and I can make a firearm, most of us on this list have enough knowledge to make an IED out of household ingredients or a trip tot he big box store or hardware store. Heck YouTube has several dozen videos on making thermite.
You could certainly make something as simple as the liberator pistol. The whole idea behind it was one time use at close range to get the better weapon from the bad guy.
-
On this there is no cherry-picking, except by those who think the only right in the Constitution is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons. In other words, it’s the accessories to murder who are cherry-picking.
"Do whatever the hell you want" is not part of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There are laws which govern the use of those weapons. There is a difference between keeping and bearing any firearm and using that arm indiscriminately. No one is arguing for the latter, only that the sort of arm is of no concern among those who will not use that arm for nefarious purposes, and anything from a rock to a piece of scrap lumber or bottle can be used to injure or kill by those who are bent on malice. For that reason, we focus on regulating malicious actions, rather than focus on regulating every device by which malicious actions can be perpetrated.
For that reason, owning a tank isn't illegal (just expensive)--and people do, but the use of that tank is regulated, from road restrictions and highway laws, to very definite rules about operating any armaments on the vehicle.
-
"For that reason, owning a tank isn't illegal (just expensive)--and people do, but the use of that tank is regulated, from road restrictions and highway laws, to very definite rules about operating any armaments on the vehicle.
You don't have to buy, you can rent.
https://www.drivetanks.com/ (https://www.drivetanks.com/)
-
I don't support such laws; they are clearly "work-arounds" because of the failure of libs to pass laws they want to directly regulate the transfer of ownership of firearms. Everyone knows what a gun is and what it does. It is ridiculous for a manufacturer to be able to be sued for making a lawful product that is used as intended. Sue the dealer for failure to background-check a purchaser, and extend the cause of action to private sales under a strict liability theory. THAT would be efficacious and, IMO, just. But sue the manufacturer? That's absurd.
Typical liberal. Forget personal responsibility for the criminal's own actions. Sue/impoverish/incarcerate a person who committed no crime, who hurt no one except by the transitive property of lawsuitdom.
You would have to prove that the person who sold the firearm KNEW that it was to be used for illegal purposes.
Considering the Obama Administration's tender hand in Operations Gunwalker (Fast and Furious) and Gangwalker, and likely Grenadewalker and others, which put arms and even Class III devices in the hands of notorious international criminals and their associates, as well as street gangs in America, that's a hoot.
How about y'all quit feeding the lawyers on contingency and pursue the people who actually did the deed of harming someone?
Otherwise, you can sue the guy who sold the fertilizer and seed to the farmer who grew the grain which was made into whiskey that some fellow drank before he got behind the wheel and killed someone while DUI.
-
What dealer is selling without running the NCIS check? It has proved to be the Feds that fall down here by not entering the info into the NCIS database, such as Devin Patrick Kelley.
I think you meant the NICS check. Likely NCIS has access to that data, too...(I haet tranpsositions, oto!)
-
Banning a legally owned piece of equipment won't do anything to save children's lives or anyone else lives.
Our supposedly "most conservative President ever" just came down on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment.
Or maybe he sees this as a simple pacifier for the drooling lefties without doing too much to damage the 2nd. In the grand scheme of things, this is small change.
-
I think you meant the NICS check. Likely NCIS has access to that data, too...(I haet tranpsositions, oto!)
Gibbs has the data.
-
Gibbs has the data.
Abbie got it for him.
-
Or maybe he sees this as a simple pacifier for the drooling lefties without doing too much to damage the 2nd. In the grand scheme of things, this is small change.
If only that were true.
Sadly his stances on gun control are well documented.
He's showing now he's beginning to fall back on those New York values when it comes to guns.
-
Typical liberal. Forget personal responsibility for the criminal's own actions. Sue/impoverish/incarcerate a person who committed no crime, who hurt no one except by the transitive property of lawsuitdom.
Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime", but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem. I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability. And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales. Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.
I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information. But that's a separate question. Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed. Hell, roamer brags about doing it. This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.
-
Or maybe he sees this as a simple pacifier for the drooling lefties without doing too much to damage the 2nd. In the grand scheme of things, this is small change.
I suspect you're right, although I think Trump does genuinely feel for the victims of Parkland, and wants to try to do something tangible about it.
-
When and where was this?
@Right_in_Virginia
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH
You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?
let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate
1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.
The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s
What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)
Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.
-
You would proclaim that Original Intent can be best determined by the thinking of modern justices than the stated intent of those who advocated the very Amendment we discuss. Poppycock. If you want to know what the founders meant you need go no farther than the writings of the advocates of the Constitution, nor any farther than the plain English of the Amendment itself. The Federalist Papers stated the reason for the protection of the Right, that being the very protection of the Republic. As for how protected, the language is clear:
"...the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
It is amazing to behold the Priesthood of lawyers and Statists who craft such devious doctrines to circumvent, abolish and otherwise ignore enumerated rights and words written on parchment and ratified into the supreme law of the land. They do this while at the same time, declaring insoluble and indivisible - behavioral "rights" created out of thin air by judicial fiat and decree. The secular and Collectivist morality being 'made' legal by reading it into the foundational documents.
THOSE they argue are untouchable and inalienable - while enumerated rights that pose obstacle to the imposition of their Leftist state are litigated to mere government-granted privileges.
Sugar-coating the legalistic abolishment of our rights into government-granted privileges with words like 'reasonable', 'regulation' and 'community' while citing court-precedents as superior to the Constitution and the intents of the Founders, is their sinister wedge to prying our rights from our grasp.
I'm done arguing with them. They insist we accept their demands as 'reasonable' while they declare opposition 'selfish', 'absolutist' and a 'fetish'. The only truth such people need to understand is that we will REFUSE to abide or comply with any decree,"law" or "regulation" in regards to rendering our gun rights into government-regulated privileges.
They will have to empower the agents of the state to go out and kill, with guns - many tens of thousands or more who are going to refuse to comply with their disarmament plans.
Which is what the State will eventually do anyway to a disarmed people - as history teaches.
The Advocates for tyranny like our resident Leftist simply need to be reminded that they are going to rue the day they empowered the state to do their bidding.
Live free, or die means something to us. Let them test that belief should they be stupid enough to do so.
-
It is amazing to behold the Priesthood of lawyers and Statists who craft such devious doctrines to circumvent, abolish and otherwise ignore enumerated rights and words written on parchment and ratified into the supreme law of the land. They do this while at the same time, declaring insoluble and indivisible - behavioral "rights" created out of thin air by judicial fiat and decree. The secular and Collectivist morality being 'made' legal by reading it into the foundational documents.
THOSE they argue are untouchable and inalienable - while enumerated rights that pose obstacle to the imposition of their Leftist state are litigated to mere government-granted privileges.
Sugar-coating the legalistic abolishment of our rights into government-granted privileges with words like 'reasonable', 'regulation' and 'community' while citing court-precedents as superior to the Constitution and the intents of the Founders, is their sinister wedge to prying our rights from our grasp.
I'm done arguing with them. They insist we accept their demands as 'reasonable' while they declare opposition 'selfish', 'absolutist' and a 'fetish'. The only truth such people need to understand is that we will REFUSE to abide or comply with any decree,"law" or "regulation" in regards to rendering our gun rights into government-regulated privileges.
They will have to empower the agents of the state to go out and kill, with guns - many tens of thousands or more who are going to refuse to comply with their disarmament plans.
Which is what the State will eventually do anyway to a disarmed people - as history teaches.
The Advocates for tyranny like our resident Leftist simply need to be reminded that they are going to rue the day they empowered the state to do their bidding.
Live free, or die means something to us. Let them test that belief should they be stupid enough to do so.
:facepalm2:
-
Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime", but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem. I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability. And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales. Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.
I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information. But that's a separate question. Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed. Hell, roamer brags about doing it. This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.
I think your post is very well-put. I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.
-
I think your post is very well-put. I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.
Here's why:
Here are four major problems with requiring background checks for private gun transfers as a policy, as opposed to a political stunt:
1. Expanding the background check requirement makes no sense as a response to mass shootings (even though that is how it has been presented), because the perpetrators of these crimes, including last week's massacre in Oregon, typically either have actually passed background checks or could do so because they do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.
2. Expanding the background check requirement makes little sense as a response to more common forms of gun violence, since criminals with felony records can always obtain weapons on the black market, through buyers with clean records, or by theft.
3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.
4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction. In Oregon, which expanded its background-check requirement in August, some local law enforcement officials have publicly stated they do not plan to enforce the new rule, either because they do not have the resources or because they view it as an unconstitutional intrusion. The Oregonian notes that "there is no centralized registry of guns in Oregon...that could be used to track a gun found in a criminal's possession." The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.
Consider: Does the theoretical prospect of a 10-year prison sentence deter gun owners from smoking pot or pot smokers from owning guns?
http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar)
Bottom line it's a feel good measure that accomplishes absolutely nothing in reality.
-
I think your post is very well-put. I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.
Bad News For “Universal†Background Check Supporters
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171019/bad-news-for-universal-background-check-supporters (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171019/bad-news-for-universal-background-check-supporters)
...Recently, anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute took a look at “universal†background check laws in Washington, Colorado and Delaware. All three states passed similar laws in 2013, and Wintemute wanted to see if the laws had led to an increase in the number of background checks. As it turns out, the answer was “no,†at least for Washington and Colorado. Universal background check laws clearly don’t lead to universal background checks for every transfer of a firearm. Gun owners know this, and we’ve tried to point this out to anti-gun activists on many occasions, but they needed to see the science. Now they have.
Wintemute and others are now trying to claim that the problem with the “universal†background check laws can be fixed with “more assertive enforcement.†Yet the study’s authors can’t really point to more assertive enforcement in Delaware, even though it did see an increase in background checks for both handguns and long guns. What would “more assertive enforcement†look like, anyway? It’s a pretty imprecise phrase for a man of science like Wintemute to throw around without offering up specific examples.
The problem for Wintemute is that these laws are nearly impossible to enforce, and law enforcement officers know it. That’s why so many have been opposed to these feel-good but ineffective background check laws for quite a while. Virtually every county sheriff in New Mexico opposed the Bloomberg-backed gun control bill when it was introduced in the state’s legislature earlier this year. Sheriffs spoke out about the need to be able to hold repeat offenders on higher bond, the number of plea bargains, and other issues surrounding the criminal justice system and violent offenders. That’s where they think the focus should be, but gun control advocates have a different priority. They think cops across the country should be spending precious time and resources trying to find illegal gun transfers instead of the individuals who are actually committing violent crimes.
How well does that work to make us safer? Well, take one more look at that study on background check laws. Supposedly, Delaware saw a significant increase in background checks. Unfortunately, Delaware also saw its homicide rate significantly increase as well; from 4.4 in 2013 to a 30-year high of 6.6 in 2015, before dropping slightly to 5.9 in 2016. Washington and Colorado also had a slight increase in homicide rates (from 2.4 to 2.7 in the case of Washington and 3.3 to 3.7 for Colorado), but nothing like the spike seen in Delaware. Yes, the state most compliant with its “universal†background check law also had the highest homicide rate and the biggest increase in its homicide rate of the states studied....
-
I think your post is very well-put. I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.
Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.
-
Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.
Because you believe someone willing to murder will feel bound by Background Check requirement?
Which one of the murders would this have prevented?
-
Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.
You are getting truly despicable in your disgusting hyperbole. It's not enough for you to equate supporters of the 2nd Amendment with child murders and school shootings...you have to double down on your stupidity.
-
Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.
An unusual moment of clarity, although I suspect you may be employing sarcasm. You're absolutely right, it shouldn't be. Because today's society is full of people like you who think every murder of a child is an opportunity to stop people from buying an AR-15 (impulse buy or not), I am thankful I don't live in a totalitarian state like NY that would prevent me from doing so.
Now, if you don't mind, I need to go schedule some range time for my new purchase. Gotta justify that increase in my insurance premium. And Happy Birthday to you too, whenever that is.
-
You are getting truly despicable in your disgusting hyperbole. It's not enough for you to equate supporters of the 2nd Amendment with child murders and school shootings...you have to double down on your stupidity.
Insults are a lot less fun when they’re aimed st you, aren’t they?
As are you in your asinine accusations that I’m nothing more than a gun-grabbing statist because I (a) pointed out quite correctly that the furor was not going to just die down this time, and (b) am interested in exploring all possible alternatives to trying to keep whackos from legally getting their hands on guns, even if that means making it harder for non-whackos to get guns as well.
The fact of the matter is this: this shooting demonstrated that the usual offerings are inadequate; what’s to guarantee law enforcement won’t drop the ball again the next time a whacko shows signs of acting out? That means that more restrictive measures must be contemplated and all the costs and benefits weighed.
But I can’t even get to that discussion with you or anyone else on this forum. You’re more concerned that some backwoods baker have the right to discriminate against gays in a retail business than you are that an obvious whacko was able to legally buy a firearm and lots of ammunition, and kill 17 kids.
And when the survivors lash out in anger, and go for the obvious, there is no understanding or comprehension, just derision and jeering.
You disgust me.
Now, why don’t we put down the hyperbole and the imagined horribles, and have an adult discussion about how we can make the murder of kids a little less likely.
-
Insults are a lot less fun when they’re aimed st you, aren’t they?
As are you in your asinine accusations that I’m nothing more than a gun-grabbing statist because I (a) pointed out quite correctly that the furor was not going to just die down this time, and (b) am interested in exploring all possible alternatives to trying to keep whackos from legally getting their hands on guns, even if that means making it harder for non-whackos to get guns as well.
The fact of the matter is this: this shooting demonstrated that the usual offerings are inadequate; what’s to guarantee law enforcement won’t drop the ball again the next time a whacko shows signs of acting out? That means that more restrictive measures must be contemplated and all the costs and benefits weighed.
But I can’t even get to that discussion with you or anyone else on this forum. You’re more concerned that some backwoods baker have the right to discriminate against gays in a retail business than you are that an obvious whacko was able to legally buy a firearm and lots of ammunition, and kill 17 kids.
And when the survivors lash out in anger, and go for the obvious, there is no understanding or comprehension, just derision and jeering.
You disgust me.
You need about a month long time out.
-
You need about a month long time out.
For what? Stating my opinion? Go right ahead, cowboy.
-
Now, why don’t we put down the hyperbole and the imagined horribles, and have an adult discussion about how we can make the murder of kids a little less likely.
Teach them about God, morality, family, responsibility and duty.
Stop empowering government to mandate the illusion of safety and security by becoming god and mommy while taking away rights you do not trust your countrymen with.
-
Teach them about God, morality, family, responsibility and duty.
Stop empowering government to mandate the illusion of safety and security by becoming god and mommy while taking away rights you do not trust your countrymen with.
And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.
-
And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.
No.
That does not address or solve the root cause of the problem, anymore than banning the sale or possession of alcohol stops drunkeness.
-
Because something as trivial as the murder of a child shouldn’t be allowed to ruin one’s ability to run out on impulse and buy an AR-15 for one’s birthday.
My anger gets directed rather to the dirty, rotten, filthy, lazy government employees at the FBI, the local police,, the school district, etc.
They alone deserve your concern over the death of children in Florida, Texas etc.
Not at law abiding citizens that want to own a gun.
-
Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime", but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem. I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability. And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales. Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.
I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information. But that's a separate question. Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed. Hell, roamer brags about doing it. This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.
Privately means just that. Privately. If the government or a dealer are involved, it isn't private, but a commercial transaction involving hoops to jump through and actions outside the normal activity of persons who do other things for a living (otherwise, they'd be dealers).
Dealers are already constrained by the provisions of the 1968 GCA and subsequent provisions. Dealers and even gunsmiths and pawnbrokers are required to run background checks before releasing a firearm to the customer, and even more in some jurisdictions. It is a crime to not run that check, and only under extraordinary conditions may it be released without doing so.
That isn't what you are after. You are after suing the person who sells a gun to their neighbor or leaves one to their children. You, in a word, want registration. You want further encumbrances, expense, and difficulty (also known as infringements) for the persons who have been conducting themselves within the law, as if just one more law will do anything but create one more opportunity to ensnare the otherwise law-abiding in yet another bureaucratic trap.
We don't need to create more 'criminals' by decree, we should be using our resources to go after the ones which exist.
Becaise. as we saw under Clinton, Federal Agencies have been known to violate the law: The BATF was caught amassing a database of background check information long past the rule requiring the information on allowed purchases being disposed of at the beginning of the next operational day. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics (https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics). As for what that and other federal agencies have done under the Obama administration's surge in the sales of such firearms as the AR-15 and variants, who knows, but I am not one to trust that the conduct of such agencies has been within the constraints (letter or spirit) of the law.
Such djinns do not go back in the bottle well.
As history bears out, registration equals confiscation sooner or later, with totalitarianism hot on the heels of that.
Even the relatively liberal Canadians rejected a measure requiring the registration of long guns to the degree that noncompliance was so pervasive they gave up on the law. The Mounties may always get their man, but they didn't get that law.
-
And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.
People are murdered at a much higher rate with knives...
Should you have to carry liability insurance to go out your front door because of all the potential harm you can do? And if not, why not?
-
And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales. Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.
LOL! Not going to happen.
I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information. But that's a separate question. Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed. Hell, roamer brags about doing it. This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.
Like that's a bad thing. I am breaking no laws. But I am absolutely willing to break laws if I must. What you envision will not be complied with by me, or really, anyone I know.
-
I think your post is very well-put. I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.
Because no one will comply. And I guarantee that will come from the statehouse in MT, and probably also ID, WY, AK,ND, and UT at the very least.
-
And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.
More people are murdered with knives than guns. Wanna register and insure those too??
-
People are murdered at a much higher rate with knives...
Should you have to carry liability insurance to go out your front door because of all the potential harm you can do? And if not, why not?
LOL! sorry... GMTA.
:beer:
-
More people are murdered with knives than guns. Wanna register and insure those too??
Don't tempt him with further ideas.
You know he will advocate for exactly that once he gets feel-good gun registration and mandatory insurance requirement.
He has to work to keep his Collective society safe from Selfish Absolutists, fetishists, bigots and unhinged nuts in bunkers.
-
Don't tempt him with further ideas.
You know he will advocate for exactly that once he gets feel-good gun registration and mandatory insurance requirement.
He has to work to keep his Collective society safe from Selfish Absolutists, fetishists, bigots and unhinged nuts in bunkers.
You forgot 'paranoid hillbillies' :shrug: :whistle:
-
You forgot 'paranoid hillbillies' :shrug: :whistle:
Yes. Us too.
-
And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.
Why is it that people point to prohibition as a fine example of why prohibiting the possession and use of something just doesn't work, and reference that talking about anything they don't want banned, then can turn around and push for a ban on something they don't like as if it will work just fine.
You can't track every 3D printer, every bar of steel, every tool used in the manufacture of firearms, and where there is a market, there will be supplies. In other countries, a clone of virtually any firearm can be made by craftsmen in primitive workshops. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-in-pakistan/ (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/07/30/gunsmithing-in-pakistan/)
Don't think Americans could not do the same and far more.
I haven't even mentioned smuggling, which, if tons of Marijuana, Cocaine, Meth, and other material can be smuggled in daily, will just bring in even more potent weapons from elsewhere, (Real AK-47s, not just the semi-automatic clones and lookalikes) which are readily available in the world market. So criminals will always have access to the tools they want to perform their trade, the jihadis will ever have access to arms through clandestine means.
What' more, in this instance, even the background check did not disclose the nature of the person buying the firearm. None of the tips and complaints which made it to the ears of Law Enforcement agencies were acted upon, and the school itself was complicit in not reporting problems they had had with the shooter (as a matter of policy).
Enacting more legislation might look like 'doing something', even give the appearance of 'doing something meaningful' (again) but the lack of legislation wasn't the problem, it was the way the information given wasn't acted upon by the very agencies who would be tasked with enforcing any additional legislation, legislation which would require the diversion of resources from the tasks that already are not being adequately performed. I have grave doubts that is any solution to the problem.
The whole event class of school shootings is a symptom of deeper cultural problems. Those who do not want to admit those other problems exist, who do not want to acknowledge the real remedies necessary to make shooting up a crowd of innocent people in any venue an unthinkable act again in the popular psyche, will propose and blame and point fingers, but the cultural malaise that folks have commonly attributed to one or more demographics within the US in specific areas has spread to be more commonplace and is manifested a little differently in a different demographic.
I'd also think those in the legal profession would welcome the opportunity to delve into possible relationships between the administration of certain classes of antidepressants and these incidents.
-
You forgot 'paranoid hillbillies' :shrug: :whistle:
D@mmit! I want a hill!
-
D@mmit! I want a hill!
You could always retire to one. I wanna.
-
D@mmit! I want a hill!
Never fear, my NoDak badrock friend, I can firmly attest that wherever you are, you never really left the holler.
:beer:
-
Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime", but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem. I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability. And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales. Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.
I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information. But that's a separate question. Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed. Hell, roamer brags about doing it. This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.
Yeah, if only the Florida shooter hadn't been able to buy his guns from a private seller he never would have killed all those kids. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Yeah, if only the Florida shooter hadn't been able to buy his guns from a private seller he never would have killed all those kids. *****rollingeyes*****
Sure is good at talking dorm-room bullshit sessions, isn't he?
-
Sure is good at talking dorm-room bullshit sessions, isn't he?
Oh hell, when even the playground jackass sees the holes in the logic, things are in pretty rough shape.
-
And make it harder for them to access the instrumentalities of murder.
Despite what the media tells you we do not have an epidemic of school shootings. In 2017 there were 5 students killed, and a year earlier only 3. And the instruments of murder you speak of. In 1978 51% of homes reported having a firearm. Today it is down to 36%. A huge drop. So stop with blaiming a gun epidemic that doesnt exist.
These numbers from the Michael Merced show discussing the topic.
-
Yeah, if only the Florida shooter hadn't been able to buy his guns from a private seller he never would have killed all those kids. *****rollingeyes*****
You know all this bullshit is coming from folks that don't know one end of a rifle from the other, and cannot comprehend why anyone would need one...
-
Allegedly, some school shootings have been prevented.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/stunning-list-cops-stop-dozens-of-school-attacks-before-they-happen/ (http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/stunning-list-cops-stop-dozens-of-school-attacks-before-they-happen/)
Some of the incidences are not much in my view, someone brought a gun to school but that is not definite intent.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)
One can not underestimate the horror and terror of a school shooting but one sees, even with mass shootings, so far in 2018, 34 have died in mass shootings, 2117 and counting total gun deaths.
But this is the hot-button issue where a lot of people go bonkers. I would never want to be cynical to those who have lost loved ones. The media has their day, a crisis does not go to waste.
-
I read this yesterday and will post to the world news per "knife attacks" in England and Wales, pretty high numbers. Excerpt and that total population I will guess is 75 million, in that ballpark:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/7DF4/production/_99744223_2chart-rise_knife_crime-nebjt-nc.png)
Sixteen people have been stabbed to death in London since the start of 2018. Five of those were teenagers.
Read more at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43138554 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43138554)
It seems like quite a lot of these crimes.
-
Never fear, my NoDak badrock friend, I can firmly attest that wherever you are, you never really left the holler.
:beer:
:beer:
-
Despite what the media tells you we do not have an epidemic of school shootings. In 2017 there were 5 students killed, and a year earlier only 3. And the instruments of murder you speak of. In 1978 51% of homes reported having a firearm. Today it is down to 36%. A huge drop. So stop with blaiming a gun epidemic that doesnt exist.
These numbers from the Michael Merced show discussing the topic.
I would note that fewer people trust anyone with an affirmative answer when queried as to whether or not they have firearms in the home. I think that is more a question of decreasing trust in TPTB and desire to remain private than a decline in firearm ownership. Depending on the level of evasion in answering the question, the main thing measured might be how much people trust whomever is taking the poll and where the information is going rather than an actual decline in firearms ownership.
This article offers a different perspective on the sales of guns (new ones) which might indicate that people were not exactly forthcoming on the surveys: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/#218b38254df4 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/#218b38254df4)
As for the AR-15, this has become the all-American Sport-utility rifle in the past decade, with millions being sold. While in the past the allure was more narrowly based, the Stoner variant semiautomatic rifle has gained far greater popularity among the civilian population than enjoyed in the past, and East Bloc (semi-automatic AK/SKS/Dragunov) versions have their own following as well, only dampened by import bans.
Considering that increase in new firearm sales, (recall Obama being named "Gun Salesman of the Year" for multiple years), I question the stats.
-
Here's why:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar)
Bottom line it's a feel good measure that accomplishes absolutely nothing in reality.
Thanks for giving me this info! I'm sorry I'm late in answering, but I have a couple of follow-up questions, if you don't mind.
From the article:
3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.
Why should people in the US illegally (visa overstays) be allowed to buy guns? Or felons -- I thought that was pretty well accepted? Or crack-heads (yeah, the changing attitudes about marijuana complicate this)? Mental illness and medication is currently up for discussion, I thought.
4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction....The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.
I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse -- especially if we don't want felons, visa overstays, crazy people, drug addicts to own guns. Why would anyone be okay with selling a gun to an illegal alien? Or someone who just got out of prison for beating up his neighbor and now wants revenge? John Hinckley Jr. is now out of stir; would it be okay to sell a gun to him? Why isn't that irresponsible?
As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF? If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.
Consider:
-
Teach them about God, morality, family, responsibility and duty.
Crazy people don't relate to morality and religion the way sane people do.
-
I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse
Correction: Not that people don't want to. People won't - Simple as that. Proven as fact in Washington state. Again, if otherwise law abiding citizens will not comply, what on earth makes you think that the criminal element will?
You are beating a dead horse, thinking magical laws will change reality.
As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF? If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.[/b]
Except that people will not go through dealers or brokers. If for no other reason than the monetary hit. The dealer will take a very substantial nick out of the profit.
Why do that when a simple private transaction will do, and no one the wiser?
-
You are beating a dead horse, thinking magical laws will change reality.
A people that want a government to keep them safe and provide security for them, are a people already willingly sold into slavery and despotism.
They are not free, they are subjects.
And such is the natural state man always wants to return to: to be ruled by men.
-
A people that want a government to keep them safe and provide security for them, are a people already willingly sold into slavery and despotism.
They are not free, they are subjects.
And such is the natural state man always wants to return to: to be ruled by men.
Exactly right - and counter to liberty. Opposite of liberty. As they will find out, soon enough.
-
Thanks for giving me this info! I'm sorry I'm late in answering, but I have a couple of follow-up questions, if you don't mind.
From the article:
3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.
Why should people in the US illegally (visa overstays) be allowed to buy guns? Or felons -- I thought that was pretty well accepted? Or crack-heads (yeah, the changing attitudes about marijuana complicate this)? Mental illness and medication is currently up for discussion, I thought.
4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction....The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.
I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse -- especially if we don't want felons, visa overstays, crazy people, drug addicts to own guns. Why would anyone be okay with selling a gun to an illegal alien? Or someone who just got out of prison for beating up his neighbor and now wants revenge? John Hinckley Jr. is now out of stir; would it be okay to sell a gun to him? Why isn't that irresponsible?
As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF? If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.
Consider:
Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.
-
Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.
I'm still focused on the mentally ill mass shooters. They seem to acquire their weapons legally. If it's so easy to buy guns on the black market, avoid the background checks and waiting periods, why don't they do that already? Why do they expend the time and effort to go the legal route if they don't have to?
-
I'm still focused on the mentally ill mass shooters. They seem to acquire their weapons legally. If it's so easy to buy guns on the black market, avoid the background checks and waiting periods, why don't they do that already? Why do they expend the time and effort to go the legal route if they don't have to?
I imagine there's a price premium to be paid for hush-hush transactions. And there's a risk of getting caught involved.
-
Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.
If that's the case, why bother having laws at all?
The purpose of registration is to identify and assign a person with legal responsibility for a particular gun. That's hardly an unconstitutional objective, and certainly not an "infringement" on the RKBA. A registered gun will remain the legal responsibility of the registrant unless and until the thing is lawfully transferred, disposed of, or reported to the police as stolen.
-
If that's the case, why bother having laws at all?
The purpose of registration is to identify and assign a person with legal responsibility for a particular gun. That's hardly an unconstitutional goal. A registered gun will remain the legal responsibility of the registrant unless and until the thing is lawfully transferred, disposed of, or reported to the police as stolen.
@Jazzhead
Current law does not indicate a gun or any crimes the gun may be used in are the legal responsibility of the gun owner if that gun is not in his possession.
-
I imagine there's a price premium to be paid for hush-hush transactions. And there's a risk of getting caught involved.
depends, not really, usually there is a discount since most states have increased mandatory sentencing for any crime involving a firearm.
My house was broken into a few years ago. They went through our dresser, took $20 in cash sitting in the drawer but didn't touch the $900 gun sitting beside it.
-
@Jazzhead
Current law does not indicate a gun or any crimes the gun may be used in are the legal responsibility of the gun owner if that gun is not in his possession.
Well, then that law needs to be changed. What is so unacceptable about this notion of taking responsibility? If it's your killing device, secure it and keep unauthorized persons from using it. Sheesh.
-
Well, then that law needs to be changed. What is so unacceptable about this notion of taking responsibility? If it's your killing device, secure it and keep unauthorized persons from using it. Sheesh.
@Jazzhead
What is so unacceptable about making victims of one crime responsible for the crimes committed by other people?
Is that really your question counselor?
-
I imagine there's a price premium to be paid for hush-hush transactions. And there's a risk of getting caught involved.
That seems sensible. So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer? Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.
-
That seems sensible. So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer? Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.
Hey lady. Wake up. You can build a gun in the comfort of your own home with a cheap 3D printer. There is no deterrence for people who want a gun.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jFjtE7bzeU#)
-
Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.
P.S. Regarding criminals and illegal aliens, they will use the black market; that's a big part of homeowners having weapons for protection at home and on the road, etc. But criminals and illegal aliens can also go through private sales. That I find the height of irresponsibility. Would you be comfortable selling a weapon to a stranger? Knowing that person might be someone who was prohibited from having a gun because he was violent? I recall one of the individuals who privately sold weapons or ammo to the Las Vegas shooter -- this guy said he felt terrible that his materiel was used to kill the concert goers. Does he feel bad enough not to sell any more weapons to people he can't confirm are safe?
-
Hey lady. Wake up. You can build a gun in the comfort of your own home with a cheap 3D printer. There is no deterrence for people who want a gun.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jFjtE7bzeU#)
Making that will 1) be more difficult, 2) take longer, 3) and be less effective than an AR-15. At least at the moment. Yes, there will always be ways around the law and alternatives to using guns in a mass attack (bombs, knives, cars, etc.).
But we still need to do what we can, including focusing on preventative mental health and making sure LE follows up on reports. And making it as hard as possible for mentally ill people to get weapons.
-
That seems sensible. So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer? Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.
@LauraTXNM
Very very very few licensed dealers would ever sell a gun under the table. The feds have a list of them and run stings on them every so often. They would lose their license and go to jail for selling any gun to anyone without the right paperwork.
The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer. The BATF looks for people selling higher volumes of firearms and would prosecute. Basically if you sell more than 1 or 2 a month you had better have a federal license.
Most people I know won't sell a firearm privately without running their own background check. But then most people I know wouldn't sell a firearm in the first place
-
@LauraTXNM
Very very very few licensed dealers would ever sell a gun under the table. The feds have a list of them and run stings on them every so often. They would lose their license and go to jail for selling any gun to anyone without the right paperwork.
The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer. The BATF looks for people selling higher volumes of firearms and would prosecute. Basically if you sell more than 1 or 2 a month you had better have a federal license.
Most people I know won't sell a firearm privately without running their own background check. But then most people I know wouldn't sell a firearm in the first place
@driftdiver
IIRC BATF did a two year investigaton at the behest of Elijah Cummings and some Lib senator to try and prove the myth of gun dealers knowingly selling weapons to people who would fail the background checks only two of 82 attempts we're successful.
The results were the same when they tried the same experiment on the Dark web as well.
-
@LauraTXNM
Very very very few licensed dealers would ever sell a gun under the table. The feds have a list of them and run stings on them every so often. They would lose their license and go to jail for selling any gun to anyone without the right paperwork.
The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer. The BATF looks for people selling higher volumes of firearms and would prosecute. Basically if you sell more than 1 or 2 a month you had better have a federal license.
Most people I know won't sell a firearm privately without running their own background check. But then most people I know wouldn't sell a firearm in the first place
Thanks for all the info! Question: how does the BATF to find people selling lots of weapons as private sales?
I understand people may not WANT to go through the hassle of running a background check or make less money on a weapon by going through a broker. But it seems like it's the *rsponsible* thing to do.
-
@driftdiver
IIRC BATF did a two year investigaton at the behest of Elijah Cummings and some Lib senator to try and prove the myth of gun dealers knowingly selling weapons to people who would fail the background checks only two of 82 attempts we're successful.
The results were the same when they tried the same experiment on the Dark web as well.
I never really have thought dealers are the problem. It sounds like the big issue for dealers is background checks providing complete and accurate information, making sure all LE upload records to the NICS.
But private sales should require a background check, as well. Maybe tough to enforce, but penalties should be harsh for people who don't. Yes, there will always be lawbreakers, so we need to make it very unpleasant to break the law.
This to me is the definition of "well-regulated".
-
Laura, criminals have zero trouble getting a weapon. Any city with a population over 2,500 has a criminal underground that can get you anything you want. People think registration is the answer, well if they are criminals what makes anyone think they would follow this law.
Exactly right. And towns under 2,500 have people that know where to go to get guns, drugs, etc.
So the bad guys will always have or know how to get weapons, even if stupid citizens give their weapons up.
-
I'm still focused on the mentally ill mass shooters. They seem to acquire their weapons legally. If it's so easy to buy guns on the black market, avoid the background checks and waiting periods, why don't they do that already? Why do they expend the time and effort to go the legal route if they don't have to?
Mentally ill by what standard? The Florida guy is only spoken of, as mentally ill, but I have not seen any official diagnosis.
The Aurora Colorado theater mass murderer was found to be sane for the purposes of his trial.
This idea of insanity as a defense, reason or excuse has to be done away with.
-
Mentally ill by what standard? The Florida guy is only spoken of, as mentally ill, but I have not seen any official diagnosis.
The Aurora Colorado theater mass murderer was found to be sane for the purposes of his trial.
This idea of insanity as a defense, reason or excuse has to be done away with.
You bring up a great point! I know there's a difference between "clinical" mental illness and "legal" mental illness used as a criminal defense. I thought that it was actually pretty rare to actually be declared "legally insane" at a trial. But I agree, it should be difficult and rare.
Who decides who is "mentally ill" enough to be prevented from buying firearms? Is it LE reporting visits to a home for being violent against family or pets? Is it people who've been involuntarily committed for violent behavior towards themselves or others? Is it people who suffer from some specific mental illnesses like schizophrenia (just an example)?
I think this is really where the conversation needs to go.
-
Exactly right. And towns under 2,500 have people that know where to go to get guns, drugs, etc.
So the bad guys will always have or know how to get weapons, even if stupid citizens give their weapons up.
Yep. This is one of many reasons why I think people should be free to own firearms. I know there are "good" reasons to own guns.
-
That seems sensible. So would they try to get a gun on the black market if they couldn't buy it at a dealer? Possibly, but I'd guess it would at least be more difficult and a deterrent in some measure.
LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.
You can't stop the manufacture and distribution of drugs, nor stop trainloads of wetbacks, nor even touch the sales of stolen goods.
There is no deterrent AT ALL. except the one you are trying to take away.
-
P.S. Regarding criminals and illegal aliens, they will use the black market; that's a big part of homeowners having weapons for protection at home and on the road, etc. But criminals and illegal aliens can also go through private sales. That I find the height of irresponsibility. Would you be comfortable selling a weapon to a stranger? Knowing that person might be someone who was prohibited from having a gun because he was violent? I recall one of the individuals who privately sold weapons or ammo to the Las Vegas shooter -- this guy said he felt terrible that his materiel was used to kill the concert goers. Does he feel bad enough not to sell any more weapons to people he can't confirm are safe?
HECK YEAH. What is the difference between selling a gun or any other thing? You are operating under the complete MYTH that you can prevent crime by preventing the criminal his resources. Absolutely a fairy tale.
In the end, bad men do bad things. You will find no succor until you admit that the only place to prevent him is in the actual commission of the crime.
The only defense there is is to defend yourself. That's it. And you are desperately trying to justify removing that ability.
-
This to me is the definition of "well-regulated".
No, it isn't. Look at the old English context of the word.
-
Thanks for all the info! Question: how does the BATF to find people selling lots of weapons as private sales?
I understand people may not WANT to go through the hassle of running a background check or make less money on a weapon by going through a broker. But it seems like it's the *rsponsible* thing to do.
@LauraTXNM
The monitor gun ads in places that sell guns, also gun shows.
Its usually not about the hassle of a background check. Background checks are a nothing burger. The waiting period that people without a concealed permit have to comply with is annoying.
Its usually more about price and availability.
-
Yep. This is one of many reasons why I think people should be free to own firearms. I know there are "good" reasons to own guns.
My local police dept. members, have agreed I should be more prepared to defend myself, my property and my property.
If the law enforcement pros advise that, what does it mean to me if a private citizen or government representative want to disarm me?
It means to me they have little or no regard for my safety. Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc.
-
My local police dept. members, have agreed I should be more prepared to defend myself, my property and my property.
If the law enforcement pros advise that, what does it mean to me if a private citizen or government representative want to disarm me?
It means to me they have little or no regard for my safety. Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc.
It's like that here, a few hundred miles East of you. The Sheriff asked people who can carry to please start doing so regularly.
-
LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.
You can't stop the manufacture and distribution of drugs, nor stop trainloads of wetbacks, nor even touch the sales of stolen goods.
There is no deterrent AT ALL. except the one you are trying to take away.
What is the point of having laws at all, roamer?
-
The only way a gun sale can be made without a background check is between a private seller and a private buyer.
And that's the loophole that needs to be closed.
-
What is the point of having laws at all, roamer?
What is the point indeed, when they are designed to impede the law abiding without effecting the criminals?
-
What is the point of having laws at all, roamer?
If people see laws as unjust, they will resist compliance. It's that simple. Prohibition of the 1920's for an example, saw a lot more people breaking the law than following it.
Pass a law requiring Insurance or registration and there will be wholesale non-compliance. Try to break through that by forcing compliance and you will have exactly the situation faced by the Founders when it was decided to send Paul Revere on his ride. There will be resistance, and it will sometimes be violent. That is not a threat, BTW (Hear me Mods?), it's just a prediction of what will happen if this issue gets forced, based upon the history of this country.
-
What is the point indeed, when they are designed to impede the law abiding without effecting the criminals?
The laws I propose are not designed to- "impede the law abiding without affecting criminals" but rather to provide law enforcement with information it needs to track and trace stolen firearms, and to encourage safe practices and lawful transfers/dispositions. That is, not sales from the back of a truck, roamer.
Gun owners aren't special. Store owners must keep records of sales and pay appropriate taxes, and abide by nondiscrimination laws. Car owners must register their vehicles and purchase insurance. Banks must abide by rules when lending money. Lots of activities are subject to regulation in this modern world. And while I share your concern about unnecessary, onerous and expensive regulation, your position that gun owners are somehow special and should be subject to no regulation or restrictions at all as they amass their private arsenals, is patently ridiculous.
-
If people see laws as unjust, they will resist compliance. It's that simple. Prohibition of the 1920's for an example, saw a lot more people breaking the law than following it.
People aren't laws unto themselves. Especially in a Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives and therefore carry the patina of legitimacy.
As for Prohibition, that law was resisted because it was exactly what it said it was - prohibition. Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants. I think most Americans appreciate the crisis of violence in this country, and would respect the efforts of our elected representatives to provide the tools for law enforcement to address it.
-
Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants.
Of course you are. We have no idea what the cost of this proposed insurance would be. I could walk into the store and buy 10 good guns in cash right now, but that may change if the cost of insuring them is too high. To use the car analogy always thrown around, I could go out and finance a handful of cars. However, the cost of the required comprehensive collision and liability insurance changes how many I could actually afford.
-
LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.
I specifically said I was talking about the mentally ill shooters, who do currently buy their weapons legally. My comment excluded criminals, who we know get guns from the black market already.
-
People aren't laws unto themselves. Especially in a Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives and therefore carry the patina of legitimacy.
As for Prohibition, that law was resisted because it was exactly what it said it was - prohibition. Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants. I think most Americans appreciate the crisis of violence in this country, and would respect the efforts of our elected representatives to provide the tools for law enforcement to address it.
What is the purpose of your insurance idea? Why should anybody think "government" will perform better, than they did regarding this Florida example?
--FBI misses two warnings
--School authorities find no reason to issue warnings about him
--Local police respond to 39 calls, but never deal seriously with him
--School armed guard, cowers in the face of a big requirement
And Texas church shooting
--US Air Force fails to notify data bank, of the mass murderer's domestic violence?"
Taken together these failures, PLUS recently uncovered FBI corruption, prove citizens need to be armed now more than ever.
-
The laws I propose are not designed to- "impede the law abiding without affecting criminals" but rather to provide law enforcement with information it needs to track and trace stolen firearms, and to encourage safe practices and lawful transfers/dispositions. That is, not sales from the back of a truck, roamer.
It amazes me that, as I said before, I live where there are more guns per square inch than anywhere on the planet, where I CAN buy guns without any of your ludicrous laws in my way, and we here don't have the problems you do. Nearly everyone I know has multiple guns, freely carried about, and our gun crime is low... Way low if you omit the liberal city centers.
You will not track and trace stolen arms. You might know the gun got stolen (which would probably be reported anyway), but once it is stolen, POOF! gone. No tracking, no tracing, because the criminal element doesn't give a shit about your titles and requirements.
And I guarantee you won't get compliance. Just from the point of the margin on the sale, the seller will not be able to get his profit, because the dealer doesn't buy at retail. So you are imposing an immediate loss of equity to comply.
Equally, with compliance, you are removing the ability to defend and subsist from poor people across the west. Because now they will have to buy at full retail price (which none of them can afford), not to mention what will predictably be an exorbitant insurance fee, where they were once able to dicker and trade, and at street value. . You forget that people here NEED guns to survive. And not just one. Somewhere around six or more, and most guys have way more than that.
And that's not even touching the fact of a forcible registration of guns, wherein even our state house and governor will tell you to kiss all our asses, Democrat or Republican alike.
So you won't get compliance. Not here, as has already been proven by Washington State's misbegotten venture down this road. Almost literally ZERO compliance.
Gun owners aren't special. Store owners must keep records of sales and pay appropriate taxes, and abide by nondiscrimination laws. Car owners must register their vehicles and purchase insurance. Banks must abide by rules when lending money. Lots of activities are subject to regulation in this modern world. And while I share your concern about unnecessary, onerous and expensive regulation, your position that gun owners are somehow special and should be subject to no regulation or restrictions at all as they amass their private arsenals, is patently ridiculous.
No, what is patently ridiculous is that you think merely passing a law is going to force willing compliance. If you want to register Montana guns, you'll have to do it the old fashioned way. Door to door. Come and get em.
And I will most certainly continue to buy off the back of a truck, just like I always have, and will not pay your insurance, because my guns will never be registered. Your law be damned.
So pass all the idiotic laws you want in your state. Leave my state the hell alone.
-
HECK YEAH. What is the difference between selling a gun or any other thing? You are operating under the complete MYTH that you can prevent crime by preventing the criminal his resources. Absolutely a fairy tale.
In the end, bad men do bad things. You will find no succor until you admit that the only place to prevent him is in the actual commission of the crime.
The only defense there is is to defend yourself. That's it. And you are desperately trying to justify removing that ability.
@roamer_1
Should felons be allowed to own weapons? What about the other sorts of "prohibited" people? Do you think the current law should be repealed?
-
LOL! The criminal class doesn't buy guns from dealers now. There is absolutely ZERO deterrent involved at all. In fact, probably quite the other way. Underground manufacturing of arms and ammo will very quickly be seen as an opportunity, as will smuggling.
You can't stop the manufacture and distribution of drugs, nor stop trainloads of wetbacks, nor even touch the sales of stolen goods.
There is no deterrent AT ALL. except the one you are trying to take away.
@roamer_1 What deterrent am I trying to take away?
-
My local police dept. members, have agreed I should be more prepared to defend myself, my property and my property.
If the law enforcement pros advise that, what does it mean to me if a private citizen or government representative want to disarm me?
It means to me they have little or no regard for my safety. Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, etc.
I am not advocating disarmament.
-
Nothing I am proposing would outlaw gun ownership or even restrict one's ability to buy the quantity and quality of guns he/she wants.
Do you think registration and insurance would be free?
The family living in poverty that would save for a year to be able spend $200 on a used revolver. They want to be able to defend themselves in the bad neighbor they can afford to live in. They wouldn't be restricted by the $50~$100 registration fee and $200~$500 annual insurance?
Or do only the financially secure have the right to self defense?
-
People aren't laws unto themselves. Especially in a Constitutional Republic, where laws are enacted by the peoples' elected representatives and therefore carry the patina of legitimacy.
Oh yeah they are.
See if you can talk the sheriff here into enforcing your silly gambit and see how far you get.
-
@LauraTXNM
The monitor gun ads in places that sell guns, also gun shows.
Its usually not about the hassle of a background check. Background checks are a nothing burger. The waiting period that people without a concealed permit have to comply with is annoying.
Its usually more about price and availability.
Thank you, @driftdiver!
-
I specifically said I was talking about the mentally ill shooters, who do currently buy their weapons legally. My comment excluded criminals, who we know get guns from the black market already.
That's a fairly broad brush to paint with - I dare say there are plenty of deranged folks who know the street quite intimately.
And the insanity of registering all guns to keep the occasional looney from buying one is nothing short of knee-jerk, plastic banana, feel-good nonsense.
-
@roamer_1
Should felons be allowed to own weapons? What about the other sorts of "prohibited" people? Do you think the current law should be repealed?
In many states, once they have served their sentence, and often additional time has past, Felons can own weapons.
Do you think a 18 year old that stole $501 dollars should have a lifetime ban on being able to defend themselves against thugs?
-
That's a fairly broad brush to paint with - I dare say there are plenty of deranged folks who know the street quite intimately.
And the insanity of registering all guns to keep the occasional looney from buying one is nothing short of knee-jerk, plastic banana, feel-good nonsense.
I DID NOT SAY I WANTED TO REGISTER GUNS.
-
@roamer_1
Should felons be allowed to own weapons? What about the other sorts of "prohibited" people? Do you think the current law should be repealed?
Depends on the felon. I know plenty of good ol boys who had a wild ride back in the day, and wound up with a felony. Did their time and settled down. Good folks. Family men. So yeah, I have no problem with them being armed.
-
@roamer_1 What deterrent am I trying to take away?
Weapons from the hands of good men. That is where this always goes.
-
What is the purpose of your insurance idea? Why should anybody think "government" will perform better, than they did regarding this Florida example?
--FBI misses two warnings
--School authorities find no reason to issue warnings about him
--Local police respond to 39 calls, but never deal seriously with him
--School armed guard, cowers in the face of a big requirement
And Texas church shooting
--US Air Force fails to notify data bank, of the mass murderer's domestic violence?"
Taken together these failures, PLUS recently uncovered FBI corruption, prove citizens need to be armed now more than ever.
The purpose of the insurance idea is two-fold: It's to make the cost prohibitive for low earners, but more importantly it requires registration, which is the true aim of the scheme. We know where that path leads, despite all the left's protestations to the contrary.
They do like to go on about how the insurance can help defray the "societal costs" of firearms, but that's just SJW moral preening. It's not really about the money.
-
I am not advocating disarmament.
And neither am I.
-
I DID NOT SAY I WANTED TO REGISTER GUNS.
What do you suppose this insurance gambit does? What do you think forcing all sales through a dealer does?
-
In many states, once they have served their sentence, and often additional time has past, Felons can own weapons.
Do you think a 18 year old that stole $501 dollars should have a lifetime ban on being able to defend themselves against thugs?
Oops, my mistake. I was looking at a list of restrictions from the NICS. I know it's in flux around the country, but I thought some of the generally accepted results of a felony convictions were 1) no voting and 2) no weapons. I don't actually have a problem with those consequences, but I'm willing to defer to everyone else on them. Do you think "violent felons" should be able to regain their gun rights?
-
In many states, once they have served their sentence, and often additional time has past, Felons can own weapons.
Do you think a 18 year old that stole $501 dollars should have a lifetime ban on being able to defend themselves against thugs?
No, I don't. Once the debt to the community is paid, full legal rights should be restored. I'd even argue that the lifetime ban you suggest is unconstitutional, as an infringement on the natural right of self-defense.
-
What do you suppose this insurance gambit does? What do you think forcing all sales through a dealer does?
I'm the one who advocates registration. If it's good enough for cars, it's good enough for guns. And registration does NOT lead to confiscation. That's a straw man.
-
I specifically said I was talking about the mentally ill shooters, who do currently buy their weapons legally. My comment excluded criminals, who we know get guns from the black market already.
There is a wide spectrum "mental illnesses." What laws specify the specific mental illnesses, which disqualify gun ownership?
Some claim we are in the midst of a "mental health crisis." (My opinion is, much of it stems from dangerous drugs, like speed, opioids, etc.)
ADHD, Bipolar, Unipolar, Schizoid, etc? We are all just babbling.
I have several relatives that take depression meds. One threatened suicide, 40 years ago to start her life cycle. In her case, the meds keep here fairly normal, although she says at times, it is very uncomfortable for her. I seriously doubt she would ever be a danger to others.
-
Do you think "violent felons" should be able to regain their gun rights?
What's a 'violent felon'?
-
What do you suppose this insurance gambit does? What do you think forcing all sales through a dealer does?
If we consider dealer records, limited to serial number and owner, as registration, it seems like an extremely minimal one. Do you think dealers shouldn't keep records?
Please note, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT INSURANCE.
-
What's a 'violent felon'?
People who've been convicted of violent crimes.
-
I'm the one who advocates registration. If it's good enough for cars, it's good enough for guns. And registration does NOT lead to confiscation. That's a straw man.
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
-
Oops, my mistake. I was looking at a list of restrictions from the NICS. I know it's in flux around the country, but I thought some of the generally accepted results of a felony convictions were 1) no voting and 2) no weapons. I don't actually have a problem with those consequences, but I'm willing to defer to everyone else on them. Do you think "violent felons" should be able to regain their gun rights?
https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-felons-possessing-firearms-in-texas/ (https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-felons-possessing-firearms-in-texas/)
Under Texas state law a convicted felon may possess a firearm in the residence, in which he lives, once five years have elapsed from the date his sentence was discharged. This means the later of release from prison or parole. This is not true under federal law. So, while a convicted felony could lawfully possess a firearm in these very limited circumstance under state law, he could possibly be charged and convicted under federal law, even though current federal policy is to defer to state law on this issue.
Note that this 5 years past the sentence. If you get a 20 year sentence, get out early for good behavior, it is still 25 years before you can legally keep a gun in your home.
You still need to focus on the law is only restrictive to those that follow the law. Criminals are not. Forbidding anyone to own a gun only stops the one that wants to follow the law.
For the criminal, felon or not, that wants to rob or attack people, he already has his gun if he wants it. That law isn't going to slow him down any more than the laws against illegal drugs prevent those that want them to get them. Laws only impact the ones that want to follow the law.
-
People who've been convicted of violent crimes.
So a guy that beat the crap outta a bunch of guys and tore a bar down when he was in his twenties should not be able to ever buy a gun again?
Nah. That ain't right.
-
Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Those of us who do remember history are doomed to be dragged through the repetition of history caused by the fools who don't remember it.
-
There is a wide spectrum "mental illnesses." What laws specify the specific mental illnesses, which disqualify gun ownership?
Some claim we are in the midst of a "mental health crisis." (My opinion is, much of it stems from dangerous drugs, like speed, opioids, etc.)
ADHD, Bipolar, Unipolar, Schizoid, etc? We are all just babbling.
I have several relatives that take depression meds. One threatened suicide, 40 years ago to start her life cycle. In her case, the meds keep here fairly normal, although she says at times, it is very uncomfortable for her. I seriously doubt she would ever be a danger to others.
I'm sorry for your relative(s); my family also has been helped by meds. But I know the side effects can be extremely unpleasant.
I've been saying, that I don't know all the answers for this specific issue. I would think violent actions that bring LE to one's home (like the FL shooter) should be considered. I think issuing threats should count. I think telling a therapist voices are telling you to kill people would qualify. So might a restraining order. The FL case obviously demonstrates multiple failures by LE, school, and maybe medical professionals (?). We need to hold them accountable to do better, and we need to as a country get serious about this subject.
-
Those of us who do remember history are doomed to be dragged through the repetition of history caused by the fools who don't remember it.
That's right...Better go buy you a place up in the sticks buddy. It's a comin'
-
https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-felons-possessing-firearms-in-texas/ (https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-felons-possessing-firearms-in-texas/)
Note that this 5 years past the sentence. If you get a 20 year sentence, get out early for good behavior, it is still 25 years before you can legally keep a gun in your home.
You still need to focus on the law is only restrictive to those that follow the law. Criminals are not. Forbidding anyone to own a gun only stops the one that wants to follow the law.
For the criminal, felon or not, that wants to rob or attack people, he already has his gun if he wants it. That law isn't going to slow him down any more than the laws against illegal drugs prevent those that want them to get them. Laws only impact the ones that want to follow the law.
Do you think there are groups of people who shouldn't be able to buy a gun?
-
So a guy that beat the crap outta a bunch of guys and tore a bar down when he was in his twenties should not be able to ever buy a gun again?
Nah. That ain't right.
Should he also be able to vote again?
Where do you draw the line? Should a convicted murderer, once released from prison, be able to buy a gun?
Are there some actions bad enough to demand permanent consequences?
-
https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-felons-possessing-firearms-in-texas/ (https://www.johntfloyd.com/convicted-felons-possessing-firearms-in-texas/)
Note that this 5 years past the sentence. If you get a 20 year sentence, get out early for good behavior, it is still 25 years before you can legally keep a gun in your home.
You still need to focus on the law is only restrictive to those that follow the law. Criminals are not. Forbidding anyone to own a gun only stops the one that wants to follow the law.
For the criminal, felon or not, that wants to rob or attack people, he already has his gun if he wants it. That law isn't going to slow him down any more than the laws against illegal drugs prevent those that want them to get them. Laws only impact the ones that want to follow the law.
Ok, so my main issue is the mental health one.
Right now we seem to be talking about whether there should be gun ownership prohibitions for anyone. Do you think we should do away with background checks altogether?
It seems if we had no background checks, criminals would feel free to buy guns at Walmart rather than having to go to the black market.
-
Should he also be able to vote again?
Where do you draw the line? Should a convicted murderer, once released from prison, be able to buy a gun?
See there some actions bad enough to demand permanent consequences?
Sure he should vote again too.
Muderer - Again, that depends.
If they are so bad that they shouldn't be in society, then a bullet in the ear should be the permanent consequence. Then we don't have all these worries. :shrug:
REAL rapists, REAL pedophiles... Alright, but again, bullets are cheap.
-
It seems if we had no background checks, criminals would feel free to buy guns at Walmart rather than having to go to the black market.
Why would they do that? The street is way cheaper. especially for a gun you are going to melt down.
-
Sure he should vote again too.
Muderer - Again, that depends.
If they are so bad that they shouldn't be in society, then a bullet in the ear should be the permanent consequence. Then we don't have all these worries. :shrug:
REAL rapists, REAL pedophiles... Alright, but again, bullets are cheap.
But until we have laws again that keep serious murderers, rapists, and pedophiles on death row or in prison for life, I don't think they should be allowed to buy weapons again.
It's interesting -- I've seen (mostly) conservatives complain about Virginia giving felons their voting rights back. Do you all see that as hypocritical?
-
Why would they do that? The street is way cheaper. especially for a gun you are going to melt down.
So the street is definitely cheaper than a dealer? Then why doesn't everyone use the black market?
-
So the street is definitely cheaper than a dealer? Then why doesn't everyone use the black market?
Because not everyone is a criminal and you're likely to get a crap gun, unless you pay a premium for quality. You also have to hope the sale isn't a sting, won't get you robbed, or killed.
If you wanted an untraceable throwaway for some reason, you may risk it.
-
Because not everyone is a criminal and you're likely to get a crap gun, unless you pay a premium for quality. You also have to hope the sale isn't a sting, won't get you robbed, or killed.
If you wanted an untraceable throwaway for some reason, you may risk it.
Ok, so there are *good* reasons to use a dealer. Then if there were no background checks, it seems logical at least some criminals would buy from dealers.
-
But until we have laws again that keep serious murderers, rapists, and pedophiles on death row or in prison for life, I don't think they should be allowed to buy weapons again.
That's the point. You can't stop them from buying weapons again. No matter what you do. You can make it illegal for them to do it, but that will stop nothing. It only gives you another charge you can hang em with when they are eventually caught doing wrong.
It's interesting -- I've seen (mostly) conservatives complain about Virginia giving felons their voting rights back. Do you all see that as hypocritical?
You'll find most Western men to be more libertarian - Generally speaking, if they have done their time, and certainly if they have proven to be reformed, I see no way in which the state should require anything more.
-
Ok, so there are *good* reasons to use a dealer. Then if there were no background checks, it seems logical at least some criminals would buy from dealers.
Well, it's more likely the criminal would come into the shop, check the inventory, gauge the security, weigh the risks, then come back later and steal everything. :smokin:
-
That's the point. You can't stop them from buying weapons again. No matter what you do. You can make it illegal for them to do it, but that will stop nothing. It only gives you another charge you can hang em with when they are eventually caught doing wrong.
You'll find most Western men to be more libertarian - Generally speaking, if they have done their time, and certainly if they have proven to be reformed, I see no way in which the state should require anything more.
That's much like my dad and granddad's attitude; they were very much live-and-let-live. Thank you, @roamer_1. I know we don't agree about some things, but I appreciate you sharing your experience with me.
-
So the street is definitely cheaper than a dealer?
Oh, heck yeah. Cheaper by half.
Then why doesn't everyone use the black market?
It ain't 'the black market'. It's the street. Legal sales. But that's what I have been saying - Everybody DOES use the street.
-
Well, it's more likely the criminal would come into the shop, check the inventory, gauge the security, weigh the risks, then come back later and steal everything. :smokin:
Yep, there's always that option ;).
-
Oh, heck yeah. Cheaper by half.
It ain't 'the black market'. It's the street. Legal sales. But that's what I have been saying - Everybody DOES use the street.
Ok, I missed your distinction before. Wouldn't you rather criminals had to use the black market rather than the *legal* street?
-
Oh, heck yeah. Cheaper by half.
It ain't 'the black market'. It's the street. Legal sales. But that's what I have been saying - Everybody DOES use the street.
I don't. I prefer to pay more at the store. That and I like my guns unused
-
I'm sorry for your relative(s); my family also has been helped by meds. But I know the side effects can be extremely unpleasant.
I've been saying, that I don't know all the answers for this specific issue. I would think violent actions that bring LE to one's home (like the FL shooter) should be considered. I think issuing threats should count. I think telling a therapist voices are telling you to kill people would qualify. So might a restraining order. The FL case obviously demonstrates multiple failures by LE, school, and maybe medical professionals (?). We need to hold them accountable to do better, and we need to as a country get serious about this subject.
Bad behavior has been classified as an illness. That way the person is not held accountable. He is instead a "victim" of a condition, which is deemed beyond his control.
I am sort of old school. Once upon a time in the West, a townsman kicked the holy crap out of somebody that exhibited bad behavior. He didn't wait around for the next trip by the circuit shrink to town.
More often than not, the bad behavior guy, either shaped up or left town.
If he leaves town, then comes back with more bad behavior, maybe his days (or his days of freedom) need to end.
-
Ok, I missed your distinction before. Wouldn't you rather criminals had to use the black market rather than the *legal* street?
I'd prefer criminals not buy guns since it's illegal for them to do so.
-
That's much like my dad and granddad's attitude; they were very much live-and-let-live. Thank you, @roamer_1. I know we don't agree about some things, but I appreciate you sharing your experience with me.
Likewise, @LauraTXNM :seeya:
And I might add: I don't care what you do in your state. If y'all want to try all this junk go ahead. You can have your way. I am against any form of gun control, but it's certainly fair if you want it over there. It's the federal mandate I will adamantly object to.
But then, CA (where you are IIRC) already has all these draconian laws, at least in the cities, for all the good they do.
-
Ok, I missed your distinction before. Wouldn't you rather criminals had to use the black market rather than the *legal* street?
And how exactly can you do that? There is no way. So no, I have no preference, because the preference would be invalid.
-
I don't. I prefer to pay more at the store. That and I like my guns unused
Then you have more to pay :shrug:
I do not. I will not pay twice as much for a rifle that is new vs a rifle that is well kept and in pristine condition. Optics, maybe, but not the rifle. I don't care a whit if it has already been blooded. Exactly TWO of my rifles came across a counter in my whole life, and none of my handguns.
-
I'd prefer criminals not buy guns since it's illegal for them to do so.
I would prefer criminals not be criminals.
Wish in one hand... :shrug: :whistle:
-
I don't. I prefer to pay more at the store. That and I like my guns unused
I’ve only bought one used and it was from someone I knew very well and trusted its condition. Otherwise, I agree. There’s only one new weapon that ever gave me trouble. Oddly enough, it was a revolver. I found out later Rossi revolvers are known for timing issues.
-
I’ve only bought one used and it was from someone I knew very well and trusted its condition. Otherwise, I agree. There’s only one new weapon that ever gave me trouble. Oddly enough, it was a revolver. I found out later Rossi revolvers are known for timing issues.
I have no trouble buying used. Condition is really easy to determine in guns, even on the fly. Optics, like I said, is a different story. I have been bit by optics.
-
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,305445.msg1614824/topicseen.html#msg1614824 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,305445.msg1614824/topicseen.html#msg1614824)
-
Do you think there are groups of people who shouldn't be able to buy a gun?
Yes. Liberals.
-
Yes. Liberals.
NICE.
888high58888
-
Yes. Liberals.
I shouldn't be able to protect myself?
-
I shouldn't be able to protect myself?
Sure, but only with your hands, a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat or some other tool that does not have small projectiles exiting it at high speeds.
-
Sure, but only with your hands, a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat or some other tool that does not have small projectiles exiting it at high speeds.
Asinine snarkiness duly noted.
-
I read a post earlier, but now I can't find it to share with you all. Someone said in NC, you get a permit to buy a weapon from the sheriff: they run the background check, and you pay $5 for the permit. You take that paper to the dealer and they complete the sale.
If the LEO runs the background check, that seems to take care of asking private parties to do it. This would make it easy for private sellers and dealers.
What do you all think of this?
-
I read a post earlier, but now I can't find it to share with you all. Someone said in NC, you get a permit to buy a weapon from the sheriff: they run the background check, and you pay $5 for the permit. You take that paper to the dealer and they complete the sale.
If the LEO runs the background check, that seems to take care of asking private parties to do it. This would make it easy for private sellers and dealers.
What do you all think of this?
NO.
-
NO.
Heh. Why ;)?
-
Asinine snarkiness duly noted.
It was neither asinine, nor snark. You just are new enough that you cannot properly appreciate my unique brand of humor.
I do note that you seem intent on asking basically the same question, just in a different way. To me the goal seems to be to try to get concession from those of us who are not inclined to give away our rights. Even. One. Little. Bit. But perhaps I am reading your intent wrong.
I was serious about people who self-identify as liberals not being allowed to purchase firearms. Might as well skip to the chase and let them live the end-game they want to unload on all of us. Besides that, it is fairly well documented that liberalism is a mental disorder. Nobody wants mental degenerates to be in possession of firearms. Right?
-
I read a post earlier, but now I can't find it to share with you all. Someone said in NC, you get a permit to buy a weapon from the sheriff: they run the background check, and you pay $5 for the permit. You take that paper to the dealer and they complete the sale.
If the LEO runs the background check, that seems to take care of asking private parties to do it. This would make it easy for private sellers and dealers.
What do you all think of this?
You know, when LEO cleans house of all those within its ranks that are even a molecule's width similar to the bleep ups in Broward I might pause for a second to think my way through how the above scenario would play out. I'd still probably say "No." but I would at least think about it.
-
It was neither asinine, nor snark. You just are new enough that you cannot properly appreciate my unique brand of humor.
I do note that you seem intent on asking basically the same question, just in a different way. To me the goal seems to be to try to get concession from those of us who are not inclined to give away our rights. Even. One. Little. Bit. But perhaps I am reading your intent wrong.
I was serious about people who self-identify as liberals not being allowed to purchase firearms. Might as well skip to the chase and let them live the end-game they want to unload on all of us. Besides that, it is fairly well documented that liberalism is a mental disorder. Nobody wants mental degenerates to be in possession of firearms. Right?
1) You are reading my intent wrong.
2) If I repeat questions, it's because I'm slow and don't understand. I've been appreciative of the people who are patient with me.
3) I don't want to confiscate people's guns; my family has had and still has guns.
4) Just ignore me, please, since you know I'm mentally disordered.
-
1) You are reading my intent wrong.
2) If I repeat questions, it's because I'm slow and don't understand. I've been appreciative of the people who are patient with me.
3) I don't want to confiscate people's guns; my family has had and still has guns.
4) Just ignore me, please, since you know I'm mentally disordered.
You do know this is a conservative forum, right? You're going to get some shit if you come in claiming to be a liberal. You seem like a fair minded lady. We'll work on your sense of humor. ^-^
-
Heh. Why ;)?
Because I do not want uncle nanny knowing what weapons I have, ever. period.
I will not comply with registration.
-
Sure, but only with your hands, a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat or some other tool that does not have small projectiles exiting it at high speeds.
And it can't be black plastic either.
-
Because I do not want uncle nanny knowing what weapons I have, ever. period.
I will not comply with registration.
The NC story has nothing to do with registration, does it? All it does is have the Sheriff run the NICS check instead of the store.
-
The NC story has nothing to do with registration, does it? All it does is have the Sheriff run the NICS check instead of the store.
I don't care.
Do you really think they don't record the fact ?
Why would I do any such nonsense when I can easily avoid it, along with all its hoops?
Nope.
-
You do know this is a conservative forum, right? You're going to get some shit if you come in claiming to be a liberal. You seem like a fair minded lady. We'll work on your sense of humor. ^-^
I see our resident Dale Carnegie is Making friends and infuriating people. Again.
-
I see our resident Dale Carnegie is Making friends and infuriating people. Again.
Awww... you have a soft spot for liberals. That's so cute. Why don't you go find some church lady to bleep with, you seem to enjoy that so much.
-
I read a post earlier, but now I can't find it to share with you all. Someone said in NC, you get a permit to buy a weapon from the sheriff: they run the background check, and you pay $5 for the permit. You take that paper to the dealer and they complete the sale.
If the LEO runs the background check, that seems to take care of asking private parties to do it. This would make it easy for private sellers and dealers.
What do you all think of this?
So in NC you have to ask permission to buy a handgun from the Sheriff? And you think this makes it easy?
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/33/76/a2/3376a21b4b5d11d502bff8afe252466a.jpg)
Currently, in order to buy a handgun, whether from a licensed dealer or a private individual, North Carolinians are required to either A) obtain and present a pistol purchase permit from the sheriff of the county in which they reside, or B) obtain and present a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit.
-
But until we have laws again that keep serious murderers, rapists, and pedophiles on death row or in prison for life, I don't think they should be allowed to buy weapons again.
Those whose crimes require them to be kept apart from society do not have the right to buy a weapon, they are in prison.
t's interesting -- I've seen (mostly) conservatives complain about Virginia giving felons their voting rights back. Do you all see that as hypocritical?
Many states let felons get back the right to vote, including Texas.
Pursuant to Section 11.002 of the Texas Election Code (the "Code"), once a felon has successfully completed his or her punishment, including any term of incarceration, parole, supervision, period of probation, or has been pardoned, then that person is immediately eligible to register to vote.
-
Under Texas state law a convicted felon may possess a firearm in the residence, in which he lives, once five years have elapsed from the date his sentence was discharged.
He can't buy one(fails NICS), but he can possess one in his home.
-
So in NC you have to ask permission to buy a handgun from the Sheriff? And you think this makes it easy?
The idea was that it was cheaper and faster to get the background check that way. The original NC poster seemed to think it was a good idea. I'll try to find the original post again.
-
I don't care.
Do you really think they don't record the fact ?
Why would I do any such nonsense when I can easily avoid it, along with all its hoops?
Nope.
Ok, thanks!
-
Under Texas state law a convicted felon may possess a firearm in the residence, in which he lives, once five years have elapsed from the date his sentence was discharged.
He can't buy one(fails NICS), but he can possess one in his home.
This makes sense to me. Do you think it's appropriate?
-
So in NC you have to ask permission to buy a handgun from the Sheriff? And you think this makes it easy?
This is why I think getting a CCL is stupid.
We already HAVE an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
To grovel before a sheriff or law enforcement or government to license a right you already possess, is simply surrendering your Right to become a government-granted privilege.
And, as @roamer_1 pointed out - why put yourself on a list that will be used to impose taxes, registration and confiscation of your weapons when the tyrant Statists get their way?
When a government is scared shitless of what it's armed population might do to them, you have liberty.
When a population is scared shitless of what its government might do to them, you have tyranny.
Here we are, living in a comfortable quasi-tyranny that only needs the population to be disarmed before that tyranny goes into ballistic despotism.
-
This is why I think getting a CCL is stupid.
We already HAVE an inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
To grovel before a sheriff or law enforcement or government to license a right you already possess, is simply surrendering your Right to become a government-granted privilege.
And, as @roamer_1 pointed out - why put yourself on a list that will be used to impose taxes, registration and confiscation of your weapons when the tyrant Statists get their way?
When a government is scared shitless of what it's armed population might do to them, you have liberty.
When a population is scared shitless of what its government might do to them, you have tyranny.
Here we are, living in a comfortable quasi-tyranny that only needs the population to be disarmed before that tyranny goes into ballistic despotism.
I was pretty happy when AZ passed the Constitutional Carry law we have in the Summer of 2010. I don't need any kind of a "by your leave" from anybody if I want to carry a weapon, just some space in my pocket, no permission required. Most stores around here are fine with my carrying.
I'm glad that was an election year, because the RINO Governor would never have signed it if she wasn't in a tough Primary. To her discredit, she would not extend the right to public streets that run though college campuses because that bill came to her desk after the Primary. Happy to say that it came up again after the next Governor was elected, and he had no problem signing it.
I've noticed more states have passed Constitutional Carry since we did.
-
Thanks for giving me this info! I'm sorry I'm late in answering, but I have a couple of follow-up questions, if you don't mind.
From the article:
3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.
Why should people in the US illegally (visa overstays) be allowed to buy guns? Or felons -- I thought that was pretty well accepted? Or crack-heads (yeah, the changing attitudes about marijuana complicate this)? Mental illness and medication is currently up for discussion, I thought.
4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction....The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.
I know people don't want to have to go through a broker to sell their guns; but I really don't see that as an excuse -- especially if we don't want felons, visa overstays, crazy people, drug addicts to own guns. Why would anyone be okay with selling a gun to an illegal alien? Or someone who just got out of prison for beating up his neighbor and now wants revenge? John Hinckley Jr. is now out of stir; would it be okay to sell a gun to him? Why isn't that irresponsible?
As I just read on another thread, aren't the serial number-owner records kept by gun dealers effectively a national registry that can only be accessed by the ATF? If private sales go through a dealer/broker, the records would be updated.
Consider:
Transfers don't just involve sales, they involve something so simple as giving a gun to your grown son, or leaving a collection to relatives in your will. Every time a gun changes ownership, that is a transfer. Every firearm transferred legally from ancestor to progeny would again have to be paid for (transfers through an FFL aren't free, simply because of the bookkeeping involved). Some are more reasonable than others, but for an extensive collection, this adds a lot of time and a fortune in compliance costs. Other than motor vehicles and real estate, no other class of property is subject to that sort of restriction, and motor vehicles and real estate are registered in a government database. Make of that what you will, but considering that when a FFL dealer goes out of business (for whatever reason), those Form 4473s are surrendered to the BATFE, and those, in aggregate, or more likely, in some more convenient form, constitute a database. Keeping in mind that the possession of firearms is an enumerated, protected, right, to "not be infringed", this is a violation of the letter and spirit of that protection.
TO reply to another question you had about NC, and the sheriff permit, Here in ND if you have a CCW permit you do not have to go through the NICS check. Dealers run them anyway, but it is presumed if your ND CCW permit has not been revoked that you have already been thoroughly checked out by the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation. That isn't needed to purchase a handgun, and to some extent we have Constitutional carry within the State, but the CCW permit does put you on the "good guys" list.
Otherwise, you go to the dealer, fill out the Form 4473, go through the NICS check, and purchase your handgun, often within an hour.
-
@Smokin Joe Thanks for answering! The family transfer thing seems unnecessary to me; you should be able to pass on weapons to children, etc. I agree with you completely.
I've wondered about selling to strangers -- that seems dangerous without a background check.
-
The idea was that it was cheaper and faster to get the background check that way. The original NC poster seemed to think it was a good idea. I'll try to find the original post again.
When I buy from the licensed dealer, the paperwork typically takes 5 minutes and the online check takes 5 minutes. No way having to make a separate trip to someone else would be faster. And there is no fee so I don't know how it could be cheaper.
-
@Smokin Joe Thanks for answering! The family transfer thing seems unnecessary to me; you should be able to pass on weapons to children, etc. I agree with you completely.
I've wondered about selling to strangers -- that seems dangerous without a background check.
I would not sell a firearm to anyone I hadn't known for a long time, and then not some of those. That's a personal thing. I shy away from 'deals too good to be true', because I will have the numbers run to ensure a gun isn't stolen. If someone seems shifty, no deal.
However the idea that I be able to hand my grandfather's shotgun, purchased before the Form 4473, before the NICS check, to my grandson or even great grandson some day without the Government acting as a middleman is one of the few remaining shreds of the Constitutional Liberties we had when my Grandfather gave it to me.
He bought it from a local dealer (Hardware Store), but could just have easily put a check in the mail and got a shotgun back in those days.
-
This makes sense to me. Do you think it's appropriate?
If he has redeemed himself in the eyes of the law, his full rights should be restored.
Texas allows him to own a firearm in his home only. That's a start. He should be able to protect himself as he travels. He should be able to hunt. The Federal Govt should allow him to purchase, and possess a firearm if he is allowed by the state of Texas to own one.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5TW6JSo.jpg)
-
I would not sell a firearm to anyone I hadn't known for a long time, and then not some of those. That's a personal thing. I shy away from 'deals too good to be true', because I will have the numbers run to ensure a gun isn't stolen. If someone seems shifty, no deal.
However the idea that I be able to hand my grandfather's shotgun, purchased before the Form 4473, before the NICS check, to my grandson or even great grandson some day without the Government acting as a middleman is one of the few remaining shreds of the Constitutional Liberties we had when my Grandfather gave it to me.
He bought it from a local dealer (Hardware Store), but could just have easily put a check in the mail and got a shotgun back in those days.
Didn't Oswald buy his 30-06 mail order? I don't recall people getting up in arms about that back in 1963. I think we can plant the flag of when society got stupid about guns somewhere between then and now. However, a case can be made it was really 1934.
-
Didn't Oswald buy his 30-06 mail order? I don't recall people getting up in arms about that back in 1963. I think we can plant the flag of when society got stupid about guns somewhere between then and now. However, a case can be made it was really 1934.
I thought it was when James Brady was shot.
-
Didn't Oswald buy his 30-06 mail order? I don't recall people getting up in arms about that back in 1963. I think we can plant the flag of when society got stupid about guns somewhere between then and now. However, a case can be made it was really 1934.
Yes, it was a mail order, but it was a 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38.
-
I thought it was when James Brady was shot.
I had to sign for .22 ammo all the time in 1972 because it was usable in pistols. I was 14 at the time, so it felt really stupid.
-
Yes, it was a mail order, but it was a 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38.
Thanks...I had thought it was 30-06. :shrug:
-
Thanks...I had thought it was 30-06. :shrug:
I have two 6.5 rifles. A 6.5X47 Lapua and a 6.5 Grendel.
-
I've wondered about selling to strangers -- that seems dangerous without a background check.
@LauraTXNM
One of my baseball bats was used later in life to criminally beat a man half to death. The cops inquired because of a symbol that I put on all I own - Someone recognized that logo and pointed them at me.
I guess that could have been better handled, had we only titled and recorded the transfer of baseball bats, eh?
Don't laugh that off as being preposterous, because it is quite literally the same dang thing.
-
I will have the numbers run to ensure a gun isn't stolen. If someone seems shifty, no deal.
I do that on every transaction on the buy side, just like with cars.
-
@LauraTXNM
One of my baseball bats was used later in life to criminally beat a man half to death. The cops inquired because of a symbol that I put on all I own - Someone recognized that logo and pointed them at me.
I guess that could have been better handled, had we only titled and recorded the transfer of baseball bats, eh?
Don't laugh that off as being preposterous, because it is quite literally the same dang thing.
Just cut to the chase and force people to get liability insurance for what they might do if they leave their property...
-
If he has redeemed himself in the eyes of the law, his full rights should be restored.
Texas allows him to own a firearm in his home only. That's a start. He should be able to protect himself as he travels. He should be able to hunt. The Federal Govt should allow him to purchase, and possess a firearm if he is allowed by the state of Texas to own one.
That's right. I can see an interim time to see if he reverts to his old ways... a probationary period with limits, but basically, that's right.
-
Just cut to the chase and force people to get liability insurance for what they might do if they leave their property...
Right. because SOMEBODY's got to pay.
-
Just cut to the chase and force people to get liability insurance for what they might do if they leave their property...
Specifically NOT interested in insurance. Interested in background checks. Period.
-
I do that on every transaction on the buy side, just like with cars.
How do you do that? Do you have a LEO friend?
-
How do you do that? Do you have a LEO friend?
I was wondering that also.
-
@LauraTXNM
One of my baseball bats was used later in life to criminally beat a man half to death. The cops inquired because of a symbol that I put on all I own - Someone recognized that logo and pointed them at me.
I guess that could have been better handled, had we only titled and recorded the transfer of baseball bats, eh?
Don't laugh that off as being preposterous, because it is quite literally the same dang thing.
I can see a problem for me with one of my bats. "Hey Mr. Liberty, can you explain how this bat with Mickey Lolich and Al Kaline's signatures on it appeared at the crime scene?"
-
How do you do that? Do you have a LEO friend?
YEP. A couple.
And I tell the seller it is going to happen too... Still, every now and then you find some dumbass that is playing the bet...
And in those cases, rare though they are, my LEO friends get a collar. Which is why they are happy to reciprocate. All off the books, no fault no foul.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if some our replies to questions being asked here are going to end up in an expose in Texas Monthly.
:2popcorn:
-
I'm beginning to wonder if some our replies to questions being asked here are going to end up in an expose in Texas Monthly.
:2popcorn:
No doubt that, or something similar, is in the works.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3mG1t0.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Z3mG1t0.jpg)
I'm trying to train mine to train mine to change the cat litter boxes.
-
Mine calls to me almost constantly. It's really getting old.
Either that or it's my wife telling me to take the garbage out.
-
Mine's still brand new. It's begging for some range time.
(https://www.ssusa.org/media/1537594/saintedge4.jpg)
-
This is why I think getting a CCL is stupid.
[...]
And, as @roamer_1 pointed out - why put yourself on a list that will be used to impose taxes, registration and confiscation of your weapons when the tyrant Statists get their way?
@INVAR
What they don't know can't hurt you.
:beer:
-
@INVAR
What they don't know can't hurt you.
:beer:
The less the state knows about you and what you have, own, make and do - the more liberty you have.
The more they know, the less liberty you have and the more they take what you have, own, make and regulate.
-
Didn't Oswald buy his 30-06 mail order? I don't recall people getting up in arms about that back in 1963. I think we can plant the flag of when society got stupid about guns somewhere between then and now. However, a case can be made it was really 1934.
I don't know where he got it, but IIRC, the rifle was a 6.5X52 Carcano.If a 7.62 (.30 caliber) bullet was recovered from Kennedy, Oswald would have had a hard time putting that down the pipe.
Yep, society got stupid in '34, making machine guns, sound suppression devices (mislabeled silencers), short barrelled rifles and shotguns illegal. The Miller Case, acting under the idea that a firearm had to have military utility to be considered under the 2nd Amendment, failed to demonstrate to a panel of ignorant judges that the short barreled shotgun had, in fact, been used as a trench weapon in WWI, as Miller died and the Defense did not present its case.