Obama's Opening Salvo Against Guns

[leroydb 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The "gun show loophole"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ya know why they call it a loophole? Because it was something the original lawmakers didn't think of and has been exploited. Again, while some people make this into a big deal, it does not really take away anyone's right to own a gun. Again, I seriously doubt 90% of the population would really care at all if gun shows went away entirely.

kinda like 99% of the USA, if the FAA Banned skydiving?

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Good post. You made a couple points that I, quite honestly, never thought of such as a waiting period only for a "first gun". Makes sense to me.
What is your opinion of the mental health records of potential buyers? It was a discontinuity between the feds and the state of Virginia that allowed the guns to be sold that were used in the VT shootings. Do these records fall under any doctor-patient confidentiality laws?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Nightingale 0]

I don't see any reason why a court order stating that someone is a danger to self or others, such as the order issued in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter, should not flag a firearms purchase background check in the same way a criminal conviction would. Since the person has had his day in court at this point, they can't say they were denied their constitutional rights without due process, and the government has a strong interest in keeping guns out of the hands of people in that kind of mental state. However, for something like this to be constitutional, there must be some kind of timely process for someone to get the mark removed from their record and their rights restored should they recover, as their mental condition is through no fault of their own. Timely as in months, not years.

The thing is, the people usually advocating for these conditions like background checks, waiting periods, and registration don't usually want to give anything back to the other side. I'd also like to see a national "shall issue" policy for concealed carry permits. If you're legally able to own a gun, you should be legally able to carry it. I'd like to see state restrictions that make some guns legal in some states but not in others removed. Citizens of the US should be able to buy a gun in any state, not just the one they live in.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I've got to wonder with all you gun fans, if some politician pledged to scrap every weapon related law on the books, absolutely all of them, and had the will and the clout to do it, would you vote for them?

Yup. Sure would.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One of the major complaints the NRA et al have had about the assault weapon ban was that the term was ill defined. Rather than fight against the ban, I would think that the NRA could move to define the term better. I realize that some people see this as an inch/mile kind of deal, but if you don't like the term, then define it better and suggest a better approach.

the current use of the word is "scary shit." How can the NRA improve upon it? Though the Mythbusters proved otherwise, you really can't polish a turd.

And you're missing the point. Go ahead and call the current definition a "turd" if you want, but without a better definition that may be all you're going to end up with. My guess is the next Administration and Congress has the votes for the "turd" version. If that's what you're willing to end up with, then do nothing but complain about it. If you want a better version, then redefine it.

Redefining it as "assault weapons can't be defined" doesn't appear to be an option. Figure out some sort of reasonable definition based on, maybe, the amount of kinetic energy deliverable over the course of 30 seconds or something.

It's already been done. An assault rifle is a weapon firing an intermediate power cartridge with select-fire capability.

The "Assault Weapon Ban" was concerned solely with cosmetic appearance of the weapon.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Yup. Sure would.

So, what you're saying is that without knowing anything further about a candidate, you can be swayed completely by a single issue.

Interesting. I've often wondered about this, not just about guns, but really any issue. That rather than seeing the big picture and the totality of what a person stands for it comes down to, for some, a single issue that most other people, perhaps even the vast majority of people, see as a secondary issue at best.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm unaware of any current laws that restrict my gun ownership desires in any way.

I can own as many as I want, I don't have to register them, I don't have to have any proof of purchase or ownership, I don't have a cooling off period, I can carry concealed.

Nope, I'm good where it's at.

More laws are not going to provide any increase in safety from ILLEGALLY POSSESSED WEAPONS.
It will simply add technical hurdles or limits to legal ownership.

The V.Tech massacre was with legally bought weapons. The problem was that the perp, who was clearly unsuited to be a gun owner, WAS able to buy them legally because the laws and checks were so flawed.

Strawman. It was an administrative failure in regards to entry of his mental status in the state database, not a failure of the law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Yup. Sure would.

So, what you're saying is that without knowing anything further about a candidate, you can be swayed completely by a single issue.

Interesting. I've often wondered about this, not just about guns, but really any issue. That rather than seeing the big picture and the totality of what a person stands for it comes down to, for some, a single issue that most other people, perhaps even the vast majority of people, see as a secondary issue at best.

What better way for a politician to show that they trust the American people, than to let them freely own and carry the means to defend themselves from criminals, Paul?

Why should I trust a politician that WON'T allow me to do that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

It's already been done. An assault rifle is a weapon firing an intermediate power cartridge with select-fire capability.

If that is the totality of the definition, I'd consider that somewhat incomplete as well. While that is a definition used by the U.S. Military, it's certainly not a legal definition by any means as certain terms within it are far too ambiguous nor does it completely address the kinetic energy over time aspect I had talked about.

Take, for example, Project SALVO (hmmm, a coincidence considering the subject line of this thread). I think it would be interesting to do a study to determine if there is a line that can be logically drawn based on the number and type of bullets that can be fired by a single person. I think magazine capacity limitation have already been used in attempting to deal with this, but I know of no actual study that has drawn any conclusion that above a certain number is "bad" and below is probably "acceptable."

People talk about California 10 round magazines and argue that individual magazine capacity makes no difference at all since they can be rapidly changed, but . . . is there anything to back up either side of the argument from an actual crime scene study?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yup. Sure would.

So, what you're saying is that without knowing anything further about a candidate, you can be swayed completely by a single issue.

Interesting. I've often wondered about this, not just about guns, but really any issue. That rather than seeing the big picture and the totality of what a person stands for it comes down to, for some, a single issue that most other people, perhaps even the vast majority of people, see as a secondary issue at best.

What better way for a politician to show that they trust the American people, than to let them freely own and carry the means to defend themselves from criminals, Paul?

Why should I trust a politician that WON'T allow me to do that?

Well, for starters, if you eliminated -ALL- gun laws, you would put a LOT more back into the hands of previously convicted violent criminals and crazy people. I really doubt that's what you actually would want, but if you look back at what you had just agreed to a couple of posts ago, that would be the result.

Automatic binary reactions to complex issues rarely work.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

I've got to wonder with all you gun fans, if some politician pledged to scrap every weapon related law on the books, absolutely all of them, and had the will and the clout to do it, would you vote for them?

Yup. Sure would.

Remember, I did say ALL weapons laws. You would seriously vote to scrap all weapons related laws?

You do realise that it would then be totally legal for convicted fellons, sectioned mental patients, suspected terrorists and even 12 year olds to openly carry RPGs, full autos and whatever other hardware they fancy? That absolutely anyone with the cover price could buy a Cruise missile if they so please? You don't see anything wrong with total deregulation of the Anthrax market?

That is seriously fucked up.

[mnealtx 0]

A politician that refuses to trample on 2nd Amendment rights most likely isn't going to trample on the rest of them. I can't say that with perfect certainty, of course, but the probability is high, in my opinion.

Prior to GCA 68, school kids could order guns through the mail - where were all the school massacres then? It's a CRIMINAL/SOCIETAL problem, not a gun problem. We've had a couple generations of kids raised with no discipline and no respect - we are reaping what we've sown.

Quote

That is seriously fucked up.

Yeah, that whole "holding people responsible for their actions" is SO irresponsible, isn't it? I thought that punishing the class for the actions of single individuals went out in grade school?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

So you've got no problem with North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda buying them then? After all, it's a criminal/societal problem and everyone should be responsible for their own actions right?

Yes, I reckon that's pretty fucked up.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

So you've got no problem with North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda buying them then? After all, it's a criminal/societal problem and everyone should be responsible for their own actions right?

Yes, I reckon that's pretty fucked up.

Dude - we're talking about the US, try to stay on-point, m'kay?

If reductio ad absurdum is the best argument you can make, you may want to reconsider if your position is based on logic or emotion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

That makes it easier. You said you'd vote to scrap all weapons laws, in that case Al Qaeda could buy their nukes directly from a WMD dealer in the US. I think Osama Bin Laden would love you for that.

But I was just wondering if you extended the same principle of complete weapons deregulation to other countries. So do you?

Quote

If reductio ad absurdum is the best argument you can make, you may want to reconsider if your position is based on logic or emotion.

So might you.

[Ron 10]

Quote

No, it was neither gun free nor safe, because a looney could get a gun without any difficulty thanks to inept laws.

It was a gun free zone since legal citizens are not allowed to be armed there.

Answer me this....How many shooting sprees have happened at gunshows?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Skyrad 0]

May as well hand them in noww John. Take up archery or something.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Ron 10]

Quote

So you've got no problem with North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda buying them then?

Nope as long as they do not use them. I guess you are for invading NK and Iran to prevent them from doing exactly that then?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I don't have a problem with requiring all transfers to go through a licensed dealer.

So if you (private citizen) wanted to buy a gun from me (private citizen)...We should have to take it to a dealer first? Most (all?) dealers at gunshows run a NICS check already. It is private to private sales they want to require background checks.

Quote

I also don't have a problem with a basic background check for criminal convictions and restraining orders, since with modern technology, such checks can be done pretty much instantly, so there is no reason not to make sure that the new owner of the gun is legally able to own a firearm

NICS covers that pretty well now. But you think I should have to run a background check on you if you wanted a gun from me?

Quote

It seems like what really interferes with gun shows is the "cooling off" period.

NICS removed that years ago.

Quote

the background check will reveal handguns registered to a person

No, hanguns are NOT registered now except in some states.

Quote

I don't like waiting periods, but they are probably constitutional for a first gun, IMO

Not according to the 2nd. "Shall not be infringed".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[JackC 0]

Quote

Nope as long as they do not use them. I guess you are for invading NK and Iran to prevent them from doing exactly that then?

What is it with SC and people jumping to unfounded conclusions? What makes you think I'd want to invade anywhere?

And are you really OK with Al Qaeda possessing nukes?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Automatic binary reactions to complex issues rarely work.

And banning an object to prevent an activity from a criminal has worked how well?

What I still fail to see is how people can get upset about any infringment on several rights....But suggest more on others is just fine and we should just accept it and help.

You think my type is "crazy". Well, I just support the Constitution...To INCLUDE the Amendments you hold dear. Others seem to select which ones they approve of and which ones they do not care about....The ones they care about they will fight tooth and nail to protect them, the ones they do not care about they are willing to let go.

I'll leave you with a poem that describes why some "gun nuts" do not want yet another stupid law passed that will do nothing....Yes, a majority of America does not care, and will sit by and maybe even support more gun restrictions. But that does not make it right anymore than most people not caring that some anti god billboard has been taken down.

Quote

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

You suggested that the pro gun group get together and define Assault Weapon so that the Govt could better ban them, unlike the last attempt.

At what point do we realize that our freedoms have been taken? And at what point is the tipping point that there really is no hope of the founding fathers original intent being possible?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

What is it with SC and people jumping to unfounded conclusions? What makes you think I'd want to invade anywhere?

What makes you think mnealtx has no problem with AQ buying nukes?

Quote

So you've got no problem with North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda buying them then?

that case Al Qaeda could buy their nukes directly from a WMD dealer in the US. I think Osama Bin Laden would love you for that.

All I did was use YOUR same logic on YOU.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

So you've got no problem with North Korea or Iran developing nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda buying them then? After all, it's a criminal/societal problem and everyone should be responsible for their own actions right?

Yes, I reckon that's pretty fucked up.

The United States doesn't invade countries with nuclear weapons, and countries with nuclear weapons don't use them lest the be bombed back to the stone age by the other countries with nukes.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

That makes it easier. You said you'd vote to scrap all weapons laws, in that case Al Qaeda could buy their nukes directly from a WMD dealer in the US. I think Osama Bin Laden would love you for that.

I wasn't aware that the US set law for the rest of the world - isn't it you English blokes that keep telling us that?

Secondly, there aren't any "WMD dealers" in the US - I refer you back to the 'reductio ad absurdum' argument, yet again.

Quote

But I was just wondering if you extended the same principle of complete weapons deregulation to other countries. So do you?

I don't insist that other countries follow US law - unfortunately, the same doesn't seem to hold true for others, now does it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

What makes you think mnealtx has no problem with AQ buying nukes?

The fact that he's on record as saying he wants no laws whatsoever. None. Nada. I.e. everyone, regardless of station should have equal access to any and all weapons.

Quote

All I did was use YOUR same logic on YOU.

Nah, you just think you did.