Obama's Opening Salvo Against Guns

[JackC 0]

Quote

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

It certainly doesn't. Personally I don't give a shit what guns you guys are allowed to own, I was just interested in exactly how deregulated you guys want to be. I figured that no one in their right mind would want no regulations at all because that would be completely absurd (as you keep pointing out). Yet here we are, you and several others have said quite plainly that you do indeed want the absurdity of zero weapon laws.

[mnealtx 0]

Absurd in your opinion, you mean.

I refer you to the situation in the US before GCA 68 and the remarkable LACK of school shootings and the like.

As I said above, it is NOT a 'gun problem'.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If that is the totality of the definition, I'd consider that somewhat incomplete as well.

I wanted to touch back on this -

Why is the definition 'incomplete'? ANY decent hunting round far outstrips the power of the intermediate rounds used by the so-call 'assault weapons' as defined by AWB 94.

Congress did EXACTLY what they wanted to do - they banned a group of weapons based on nothing more than external appearance as a feel-good measure that did NOTHING to reduce crime.

The ban expired, and rightly so.

Quote

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?

Why do police, who work in teams and have heavier weapons as backup, require higher capacity magazines than civilians, who ordinarlily do NOT have those advantages? Why are the police NOT required to have AWB-castrated magazines?

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

[futuredivot 0]

It would also interfere with me buying my Grandfather's old gun from my Dad since he's not a dealer.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

It was also in a gun free safe zone.

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

Yes, it was a declared gun free zone.

You have difficulty telling the difference between what is advertised and what is fact.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

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.

Laws on the books that are not enforced ARE a big part of the problem.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

Laws on the books that are not enforced ARE a big part of the problem.

So we don't need new laws or expanded bans, just effective enforcement of existing laws.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

It was also in a gun free safe zone.

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

Yes, it was a declared gun free zone.

You have difficulty telling the difference between what is advertised and what is fact.

Really? So, you have proof that students and faculty WERE, in fact, allowed to be armed on campus?

Why don't you just go ahead and trot that on out for us...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Laws on the books that are not enforced ARE a big part of the problem.

And what specific laws were not enforced in Cho's case? Please, enlighten us.

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

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

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".

Just because you have a right to free speech in the constitution doesn't mean that a state can't put reasonable restrictions on "time, place and manner" of that speech. Can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre and all that. Constitutional rights are not absolute anytime, anywhere, whenever I want, however I want rights.

No, I personally don't think a background check should be required for you to buy a gun from a private party, but I think it may be constitutional if your state wants to require that.

Waiting periods have not been removed in all states, and several states that have them register handguns. 18 states have waiting periods. In the states that do register, it makes sense to remove the waiting period for a second gun purchase.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

It was also in a gun free safe zone.

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

Yes, it was a declared gun free zone.

You have difficulty telling the difference between what is advertised and what is fact.

Really? So, you have proof that students and faculty WERE, in fact, allowed to be armed on campus?

Why don't you just go ahead and trot that on out for us...

\


FACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really.

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

Laws on the books that are not enforced ARE a big part of the problem.

So we don't need new laws or expanded bans, just effective enforcement of existing laws.

If it were up to me, I'd scrap the patchwork quilt of inconsistent existing laws and start over from scratch.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, it was a declared gun free zone.

You have difficulty telling the difference between what is advertised and what is fact.

Really? So, you have proof that students and faculty WERE, in fact, allowed to be armed on campus?

Why don't you just go ahead and trot that on out for us...

\


FACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really.

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

Nice equivocation - now answer the question that I asked.

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

[kallend 2,028]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, it was a declared gun free zone.

You have difficulty telling the difference between what is advertised and what is fact.

Really? So, you have proof that students and faculty WERE, in fact, allowed to be armed on campus?

Why don't you just go ahead and trot that on out for us...

\


FACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really.

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

Nice equivocation - now answer the question that I asked.

Not only do you have difficulty distinguishing a function from its derivative, and with statistics, but now you can't tell the difference beteween what IS and what is CLAIMED.

If I claim to have an IQ of 300, does that make it so?

If I claim a tail is a leg, does that make it so?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Nice equivocation - now answer the question that I asked.

Not only do you have difficulty distinguishing a function from its derivative, and with statistics, but now you can't tell the difference beteween what IS and what is CLAIMED.

If I claim to have an IQ of 300, does that make it so?

If I claim a tail is a leg, does that make it so?

I refer you back to your 'throwing sand' quote, except you throw bullshit to try and 'gotcha' someone rather than work from an HONEST argument.

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

[normiss 806]

FACT - Laws do not prevent illegal gun purchases.
Nor will they ever.

Law don't prevent anything for that matter.


Simple. Really.
No REALLY!

[Ron 10]

Quote

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.

And you also seem to think that he would be OK with AQ having nukes. I guess that means you are not...Then you must be willing to go invade them to prevent it.

See how slippery slope works?

Quote

Nah, you just think you did.

And you are just trying to back peddle since you know I have your number.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

Just because you have a right to free speech in the constitution doesn't mean that a state can't put reasonable restrictions on "time, place and manner" of that speech. Can't yell Fire in a crowded theatre and all that.

And those restrictions are to prevent speech that prevent someone creating a "clear and present danger according to Holmes.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), it said the free speech could only be limited in if it was planned and likely to cause a danger like a stampede.

So you could theorize that any limits on ANY Amendment follows the same logic. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Like carrying a firearm and waving it around. Reckless discharge...ect.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

FACT - Cho had guns. Therefore it was not gun free regardless of what it was claimed to be. Simple really.

More tap dancing?

Sure it was clearly not in reality a gun free zone. But according to LAW it was a gun free zone meaning it was illegal to carry there.

So it raises two points:

1. This just shows that laws will not prevent a criminal from committing a crime. A criminal is not going to turn around at some sign saying the possession of a gun is not allowed...This has been proven time after time.

2. I have asked this before...And you have avoided answering. How many shooting sprees have occurred at a gun show?

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

[quade 4]

Quote

How many shooting sprees have occurred at a gun show?

How many shooting sprees have occurred at similar sized public events where guns aren't allowed, for instance, the L.A. Auto Show (which I have on good authority is attended by more than a few local criminals)?

Your point is actually kind of moot. Shooting "sprees" aren't actually all that common at events. Individual crimes maybe, but "sprees" not so much.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,008]

>Nope as long as they do not use them.

So you opposed the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq?

[JackC 0]

Quote

And you also seem to think that he would be OK with AQ having nukes. I guess that means you are not...Then you must be willing to go invade them to prevent it.

See how slippery slope works?

Ron, where exactly is the country of Al Qaeda?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

How many shooting sprees have occurred at a gun show?

Yeah, but that's not what the controversy about gun shows is about. But of course, you knew that. And now you know that we know you knew that. Ya know?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Waiting periods have not been removed in all states, and several states that have them register handguns. 18 states have waiting periods.

In addition to those 18 states with waiting periods, the previous federal attempt to eliminate the so-called gun show "loophole" also required a 3-day waiting period. And it's not hard to figure what will happen to 2-day weekend gun shows if you can't pick up a gun purchase for 3 days.

This would require the purchaser to drive to the gun dealer's regular shop 3 days later to pick up his purchase. And if he has to drive there anyway, he could have just gone there in the first place. And that defeats the purpose of a gun show, where you can a wide variety of firearms and deals for comparison in one place at one time.

If they do this, the background checks must be instant, with no waiting period, and they must not ban private sales outside of gun shows.

Quote

In the states that do register, it makes sense to remove the waiting period for a second gun purchase.

In order to do that they would have to know that you already own a gun. And that would require gun registration. So that's not gonna fly.

Solid studies have shown the uselessness and futility of waiting periods anyway. I've posted them on here before. It's just a dumb "feel good" idea.

[TomAiello 26]

The problem is that it's virtually impossible to eliminate random wacko violence (gun or otherwise). If you take away guns, all you see is fertilizer bombs being used instead, or sarin gas attacks in subways, or some other variety of wacko-ness. I submit that the underlying problem is not the mechanism (the firearms) but the wackos.

Look at it this way: if you really wanted to eliminate all shooting violence, you'd have to confiscate all guns--and you'd still have non-shooting violence. If you just start taking away scary looking guns, then you'll see the wackos move to less scary looking, but equally deadly firearms.

As an example, do you remember the DC freeway sniper? If I recall correctly he used an "assault weapon" (despite assault weapons being banned in DC). But if he couldn't have gotten his hands on an AR-15, he might have been even more effective simply using a bolt action hunting rifle. A real nightmare scenario would be a guy hiding out in the woods with a Remington 700, a bolt action, low capacity rifle, that no one has proposed banning (you can even buy them in stores in California). Once you're down to taking away something that is so obviously a non-assault, "nice" hunting rifle, you pretty much have to confiscate everything. Which is where the gun advocates see this going.

Regardless, I think my real point is the original one--take away guns and instead you've got sarin gas in the subways. The only way to make society completely safe is to lock every individual up in a padded room where they can't hurt anyone else. I, personally, am not willing to give up the freedom's necessary for total safety. In fact, I think we're already well past the point where I'd stop that trade. I'd like to move back in the direction of more freedom, and less safety.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com