Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[JadeBrecks]

Ok, that I can see. I am not in favor of banning guns, but I am huge proponent of closing the Gun Show loophole.

Can I ask you honestly if you even know what that is?

All vendors at gun shows are required to do background checks on people before they sell to them. It is the same thing as walking into a gun store to buy from them. The only guns that are sold at a gun show are the ones where an individual takes his gun there walks around the show and another individual buys it. It is the same thing as me taking it to my friends house and selling it to him. Anything covered under that background check still apply though. If I sell it to a convicted felon or a mentally unstable person I will be held legally responsible and will be prosecuted. Another problem with background checks are they aren't enforceable without a mandatory gun registration. That was admitted by this administration. There are about a million ways that could go wrong. What happens when some worthless paper decides to release that information in their paper. Who has what guns and where they live? You are putting everyone in danger then. Robbers know who doesn't have a gun when they go to rob them and if its unregistered the home owner will hang for using it. If a crazy person or a robber wants a specific gun they know whos house to go to to try and get it. The next big problem with that is uncle sam will know exactly whos door to knock on when a specific gun gets banned. Lastly if you don't install mandatory gun registration the bill is useless. Prove I sold the gun before or after the background checks were required. Both parties involved are going to jail if they admit they did it after the requirement was installed. Expect the utmost honesty. Then we get to the best part. This bill will not stop the shootings you are doing this for. People steal these guns for these mass shootings. Go ahead then and say its to stop day to day crime then. The "gangsters" selling the guns to these criminals aren't going to follow background check laws. They already break the law by selling to convicted felons.

You want a good crusade to go after why don't we try to enforce laws that do exist. 15,000 Felons and fugitives tried to purchase firearms through normal channels and were denied. Only 44 of those people were prosecuted for doing so. It is illegal for a convicted felon or fugitive to try and buy a gun. I don't know if it is just Indiana or everywhere but it is illegal for a felon to even enter a gun store. Now if 15,000 had the guts to try and buy a gun anyways and were denied do you think they stopped trying there? We need to go after people breaking current laws. Why? because everything you are trying to stop is already illegal.

Blue and Gold game here I come!

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Feinstein said it a month ago... I'm not going to look for it, but she said it on the floor very recently... And it's just beyond silly to say everyone in this loves guns in my opinion...

Certainly hyperbole on my part. I, personally, don't much care for guns. So I don't actually think that.

But the argument I hear is never, "We should ban firearms for all citizens." It's always, "Look, I think you have the right to own guns. I'm a gun owner and I love to hunt and go to the range. That said..."

Most of the democrats I hear talking about the topic are gun owners. They're not looking for a ban. You referenced Feinstein (who, by the way, was the person to find Harvey Milk after he was murdered...she's seen what guns do) and Schumer. Okay, if that's the case, I was wrong...I'd like to see a link or transcript. I just think they're in a tiny minority.

 

[pkt77242]

I had a long response typed up and of course I get a database error when I try to post it.

I will try again later, but suffice to say that the current gun laws in our country suck. I mean suck and are so watered down as to be difficult to enforce (what the NRA has been doing for years was getting little things added to legislation to water down the ATF and our gun laws). So the whole enforcing the gun laws is nonsense as our gun laws suck.

ATF can only inspect a dealer once per year and because their budget is so low (wonder why that is?)it is actually much less frequent. ATF can't require a dealer to do inventories so it can be hard to determine if they are doing off books sells or had weapons stolen etc. Since background checks are only kept for 24 hours it is harder to prove that a store is skirting those laws because by the time they get inspected the backgrounds checks have been destroyed. Basically it is a laundry list.

I will post more later.

 

[pkt77242]

Can I ask you honestly if you even know what that is?

All vendors at gun shows are required to do background checks on people before they sell to them. It is the same thing as walking into a gun store to buy from them. The only guns that are sold at a gun show are the ones where an individual takes his gun there walks around the show and another individual buys it. It is the same thing as me taking it to my friends house and selling it to him. Anything covered under that background check still apply though. If I sell it to a convicted felon or a mentally unstable person I will be held legally responsible and will be prosecuted. Another problem with background checks are they aren't enforceable without a mandatory gun registration. That was admitted by this administration. There are about a million ways that could go wrong. What happens when some worthless paper decides to release that information in their paper. Who has what guns and where they live? You are putting everyone in danger then. Robbers know who doesn't have a gun when they go to rob them and if its unregistered the home owner will hang for using it. If a crazy person or a robber wants a specific gun they know whos house to go to to try and get it. The next big problem with that is uncle sam will know exactly whos door to knock on when a specific gun gets banned. Lastly if you don't install mandatory gun registration the bill is useless. Prove I sold the gun before or after the background checks were required. Both parties involved are going to jail if they admit they did it after the requirement was installed. Expect the utmost honesty. Then we get to the best part. This bill will not stop the shootings you are doing this for. People steal these guns for these mass shootings. Go ahead then and say its to stop day to day crime then. The "gangsters" selling the guns to these criminals aren't going to follow background check laws. They already break the law by selling to convicted felons.

You want a good crusade to go after why don't we try to enforce laws that do exist. 15,000 Felons and fugitives tried to purchase firearms through normal channels and were denied. Only 44 of those people were prosecuted for doing so. It is illegal for a convicted felon or fugitive to try and buy a gun. I don't know if it is just Indiana or everywhere but it is illegal for a felon to even enter a gun store. Now if 15,000 had the guts to try and buy a gun anyways and were denied do you think they stopped trying there? We need to go after people breaking current laws. Why? because everything you are trying to stop is already illegal.

Blue and Gold game here I come!

I already posted some thoughts on the law parts but I will try to post a little more now.

First off, selling a gun to your friend and selling to a random stranger are not the same thing. That is just crazy talk.

I personally like the idea of gun registration. I have to register to vote, why can't you register to own a gun?
According to the NRA and some of the people on this board, gun ownership makes you safe and that people won't want to rob a house that has a gun in it (saying someone decides to post that information, of course it would be easy to block access but that is something different). Um, most robberies happen when no one is home so a gun isn't going to help, and most robberies happen because a door or window is open and so the robber walks in because it is a crime of opportunity (you know the whole lock your doors and lock your windows and you might be a lot safer).
What robber is trying to break in to steal a particular weapon (well unless you have an amazing antique weapon but that is more like stealing artwork then a gun).
As far as Uncle Sam coming to take your guns. Please stop. No one is coming to take your guns (well unless someone commits a crime in which they should lose the right of gun ownership, then please Uncle Sam take that individual's guns). Hell even the Assault Weapons Ban they wanted had an exemption for current owners. If you want to go that way then I will say why should I have to register to vote, maybe one day the damn conservatiives are going to come knocking on my door because I am a liberal and beat me up and take all my stuff.

As far as the people that try to by guns and fail the background check. Yes it is a felony but it is hard to prosecute. Also are you going to pay higher taxes so that we can prosecute them, because arresting these people and prosecuting them is expensive (I am for it but remember that everything has a cost). About 100k people a year fail a background check. So after they fail a background check, why wouldn't they just go to the internet or gun show and buy a gun without the background check?

Also there have been tons of stings recently that show that gun sellers fail miserably at doing background checks at Gun Shows, but it is hard to enforce without doing stings. Just like Bloomberg did when he sent people to Gun Shows and they bought without getting a background check and everyone through a fit.

While I don't think universal background checks will stop all crime magically, I think even if it stops 1% of criminals from getting guns it is worth it. It is a minor inconvenience for the buyer and it helps to weed out ways that criminals can easily get guns.

 

[pkt77242]

I will also add that it is horrible that the NRA and conservatives forced the government to stop studying gun violence. That to me is crazy. We should be studying gun violence because it is a health issue.

 

[irishff1014]

I will also add that it is horrible that the NRA and conservatives forced the government to stop studying gun violence. That to me is crazy. We should be studying gun violence because it is a health issue.

WRONG! The mental problem is the health issue.

 

[pkt77242]

WRONG! The mental problem is the health issue.

I agree on that mental health is a health issue, but if you don't think that gun violence is a health issue I don't know what to say? Is obesity a health issue? Is polutants in the air an health issue? yep and so is gun violence.

 

[DSully1995]

WRONG! The mental problem is the health issue.

Cant place it all on that, for the psychos yes but for run of the mill gun violence theres no way you have that many mentally unstable

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I agree on that mental health is a health issue, but if you don't think that gun violence is a health issue I don't know what to say? Is obesity a health issue? Is polutants in the air an health issue? yep and so is gun violence.

Exactly.

2009 university study: Gun owners 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. - The Political Carnival

Here's the peer reviewed article in the American Journal of Public Health.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

 

[irishff1014]

Cant place it all on that, for the psychos yes but for run of the mill gun violence theres no way you have that many mentally unstable

Yea because the Domestic that cause gun violence is a health problem? Then Drug dealer that got screwed is gun violence problem? The armed robbery that happen due to a loser needing his fix for a drug is gun violence? Get outta here.

 

[DSully1995]

Yea because the Domestic that cause gun violence is a health problem? Then Drug dealer that got screwed is gun violence problem? The armed robbery that happen due to a loser needing his fix for a drug is gun violence? Get outta here.

And its just a coincidence you have all the insane and the guns? No blame for the amount of guns

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yea because the Domestic that cause gun violence is a health problem? Then Drug dealer that got screwed is gun violence problem? The armed robbery that happen due to a loser needing his fix for a drug is gun violence? Get outta here.

See the post just above yours. Actual data.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

 

[pkt77242]

Yea because the Domestic that cause gun violence is a health problem? Then Drug dealer that got screwed is gun violence problem? The armed robbery that happen due to a loser needing his fix for a drug is gun violence? Get outta here.

Ignorant much? How about suicide, how about accidental shootings, how about all of the myriad ways that gun violence happens. Our government studies everything that can kill you including, food, polutants in the air and water, Hell they study driving, drinking and driving, driving tired, driving while texting, etc. Why the **** would you not study gun violence. Unless you are afraid of what the results will be. That is the real reason that we don't study it anymore. In the late 90's some studies came out that showed that a gun in the house was more likely to be used in an accidental death, suicide or domestic violence issue than in self defense. Shockingly after that the gun lobby got the government to stop studying gun violence. Coincidence?

 

[pkt77242]

See the post just above yours. Actual data.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

I don't think he cares about actual data.

 

[NankerPhelge]

Let me clear my throat....TROOOOOLLLLL...there we go, all better

You're funny! And a self-appointed judge of legitimate comment v. "trollism" to boot! I envy you your majestic perch.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I already posted some thoughts on the law parts but I will try to post a little more now.

First off, selling a gun to your friend and selling to a random stranger are not the same thing. That is just crazy talk.

I personally like the idea of gun registration. I have to register to vote, why can't you register to own a gun?
According to the NRA and some of the people on this board, gun ownership makes you safe and that people won't want to rob a house that has a gun in it (saying someone decides to post that information, of course it would be easy to block access but that is something different). Um, most robberies happen when no one is home so a gun isn't going to help, and most robberies happen because a door or window is open and so the robber walks in because it is a crime of opportunity (you know the whole lock your doors and lock your windows and you might be a lot safer).
What robber is trying to break in to steal a particular weapon (well unless you have an amazing antique weapon but that is more like stealing artwork then a gun).
As far as Uncle Sam coming to take your guns. Please stop. No one is coming to take your guns (well unless someone commits a crime in which they should lose the right of gun ownership, then please Uncle Sam take that individual's guns). Hell even the Assault Weapons Ban they wanted had an exemption for current owners. If you want to go that way then I will say why should I have to register to vote, maybe one day the damn conservatiives are going to come knocking on my door because I am a liberal and beat me up and take all my stuff.

As far as the people that try to by guns and fail the background check. Yes it is a felony but it is hard to prosecute. Also are you going to pay higher taxes so that we can prosecute them, because arresting these people and prosecuting them is expensive (I am for it but remember that everything has a cost). About 100k people a year fail a background check. So after they fail a background check, why wouldn't they just go to the internet or gun show and buy a gun without the background check?

Also there have been tons of stings recently that show that gun sellers fail miserably at doing background checks at Gun Shows, but it is hard to enforce without doing stings. Just like Bloomberg did when he sent people to Gun Shows and they bought without getting a background check and everyone through a fit.

While I don't think universal background checks will stop all crime magically, I think even if it stops 1% of criminals from getting guns it is worth it. It is a minor inconvenience for the buyer and it helps to weed out ways that criminals can easily get guns.

Selling to both are the same. You are required to make sure that you are following the same laws. If you want to sell to a complete stranger you have to do more research to make sure they can legally buy that firearm. It is harder but the same laws apply.

You have to register to vote to make sure you only vote once. There is no limit to how many firearms you can own as long as you can legally own one. Robbers don't need to come for a specific gun. They want to become armed and they see one person has most of what they want or a higher number they will hit fewer houses to get what they want if they want. If you want stories of robberies happening while people are home click my signature picture. As far as the government coming and taking my guns do your research. dianne feinstein was seriously pushing for not putting in a grandfather clause.

Then you go on to try and discredit me by saying people don't follow the laws we have and it would cost too much to enforce when you are trying to push for more laws. If we can't afford it can we afford all the people to preform the background checks? Plus you want to push for laws that once again won't be enforceable without the expensive sting operation you mentioned above?

Then to finish it all off these laws wouldn't prevent the shootings that provoke anti gun legislation in the first place.

 

[IrishinSyria]

True story. The biggest "pro-gun, anti-government intrusion, Obama's the devil, I need firearms to protect myself and my family and I'm highly trained with them and carry them around everywhere I go" person I know accidentally shot someone two weeks ago. Hilarious.

Guns are a crutch.

 

[GoIrish41]

Selling to both are the same. You are required to make sure that you are following the same laws. If you want to sell to a complete stranger you have to do more research to make sure they can legally buy that firearm. It is harder but the same laws apply.

You have to register to vote to make sure you only vote once. There is no limit to how many firearms you can own as long as you can legally own one. Robbers don't need to come for a specific gun. They want to become armed and they see one person has most of what they want or a higher number they will hit fewer houses to get what they want if they want. If you want stories of robberies happening while people are home click my signature picture. As far as the government coming and taking my guns do your research. dianne feinstein was seriously pushing for not putting in a grandfather clause.

Then you go on to try and discredit me by saying people don't follow the laws we have and it would cost too much to enforce when you are trying to push for more laws. If we can't afford it can we afford all the people to preform the background checks? Plus you want to push for laws that once again won't be enforceable without the expensive sting operation you mentioned above?

Then to finish it all off these laws wouldn't prevent the shootings that provoke anti gun legislation in the first place.

A good start to have a "well regulated militia" would be gun registrations, no? I'm assuming you are not against the 2nd amendment.

 

[chicago51]

I never understood the whole anti-government rhetoric. We can change the government.

People that have issue with government need show up at a local Democrat or Republican party chapter and get involved. Hoarding a bunch of guns solves nothing. I think we all agree the government has overstepped it authority at times. Which is why regular people need to get knowledgeable on the issues and if possible get involved. Lack of participation and anti government rhetoric has allowed corporations to take over the Republican and to a large extent the Democrat party.

 

[4irishnation]

 

[Buster Bluth]

I never understood the whole anti-government rhetoric. We can change the government.

Ha! It takes a miracle to see noteworthy positive change (most importantly, in levels of efficiency) in the federal government.

People that have issue with government need show up at a local Democrat or Republican party chapter and get involved. Hoarding a bunch of guns solves nothing. I think we all agree the government has overstepped it authority at times. Which is why regular people need to get knowledgeable on the issues and if possible get involved.

Anti-government rhetoric is mostly anti-federal government rhetoric. That's a huge difference. You shouldn't need to go to any local party chapter to get involved, it should be local enough where that doesn't matter much. It's sad that we have to voice our concerns with a Party Rep who is just trying to move up the ladder, get bigger campaign checks, and win elections, instead of voting on state-level issues ourselves.

Lack of participation and anti government rhetoric has allowed corporations to take over the Republican and to a large extent the Democrat party.

Your insinuation that corporations have complete control of the GOP and only a "large extent" of the Democratic Party annoys me. They have >80% control of both parties.

Regardless, it's not a "lack of participation" causing the corporatism, it's the massive central government which has almost totally insulated itself from public opinion. You can say it's a participation issue, and not totally be wrong, but the libertarians will gladly point out, and be more correct, that it's because the federal government has overstepped its Constitutional duties on myriad occasions over the last 150 years. Congress now operates with utter disregard for anything but what is good for the parties, and what is good for the parties is a massive cash-flow from corporations willing to buy laws and making the other party be incorrect regardless of whether its right or wrong.

The solution isn't cooperating with the federal government, it's taking back programs and sending them back to the states where public input is exponentially more effective.

 

[BGIF]

A good start to have a "well regulated militia" would be gun registrations, no? I'm assuming you are not against the 2nd amendment.

In Heller, SCOTUS determined that there is an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.


It doesn't matter if you're for or against the 2nd Amendment.

 

[phgreek]

In Heller, SCOTUS determined that there is an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.


It doesn't matter if you're for or against the 2nd Amendment.

Yup...

Although looked at on the whole...the SCOTUS decisions re: 2nd amendment give me a headache...moving from miller to lewis, then to Heller...somewhere in all of that, you walk away with the idea that guns in, or having been in common use in the military are protected, and that protection goes to individuals... by the existing decisions it would seem MORE of a no-no to regulate an AR than a hunting rifle...WHAT?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Yup...

Although looked at on the whole...the SCOTUS decisions re: 2nd amendment give me a headache...moving from miller to lewis, then to Heller...somewhere in all of that, you walk away with the idea that guns in, or having been in common use in the military are protected, and that protection goes to individuals... by the existing decisions it would seem MORE of a no-no to regulate an AR than a hunting rifle...WHAT?

Forget an AR... the M240 is also in common use in the military, as is th Mk19. I'm fairly certain the intent of the second amendment does not include access to automatic grenade launchers.

 

[irishpat183]

Thank you. There is NO argument.

 

[irishpat183]

Forget an AR... the M240 is also in common use in the military, as is th Mk19. I'm fairly certain the intent of the second amendment does not include access to automatic grenade launchers.

And i'm pretty sure the "commerse clause" does not guarantee health care, homes, food, cell phones...etc. to the public, either.

 

[irishpat183]

And why do people keep brining up the "well regulated militia" in reference to citizens having guns.....It has nothign to do with that.

2 seperate points. We're allowed to have a militia...AND keep and bear arms.


Sheesh. It's like the liberal bullshit argument that there is a "seperation of church and state"....LIE. No, there isn't. The country cannot establishe a religion...but states are free to do so.

 

[Grahambo]

And why do people keep brining up the "well regulated militia" in reference to citizens having guns.....It has nothign to do with that.

2 seperate points. We're allowed to have a militia...AND keep and bear arms.


Sheesh. It's like the liberal bullshit argument that there is a "seperation of church and state"....LIE. No, there isn't. The country cannot establishe a religion...but states are free to do so.

Because it's my 1st amendment right to say whatever I want?

(Note the italics.)

 

[Buster Bluth]

And why do people keep brining up the "well regulated militia" in reference to citizens having guns.....It has nothign to do with that.

2 seperate points. We're allowed to have a militia...AND keep and bear arms.


Sheesh. It's like the liberal bullshit argument that there is a "seperation of church and state"....LIE. No, there isn't. The country cannot establishe a religion...but states are free to do so.

Oh damn, you don't really believe that states should be able to establish religions to you?!

Do you think that citizens should be able to have any weapon? AR-15, I assume you say yes. Nuclear weapons, I assume you say no. Where's the grey area? Tanks, submarines, and jets?

The reason that amendment made perfect sense is that one person could barely fire a round a minute. Today, if all arms are on the table, you could destroy whole cities in theory. It doesn't take much to kill hundreds of people with the right training. If nothing else, cognizance of the advancements in military technology makes it impossible not to at least reevaluate the purpose and future of that amendment.

 

[irishpat183]

Oh damn, you don't really believe that states should be able to establish religions to you?!

Do you think that citizens should be able to have any weapon? AR-15, I assume you say yes. Nuclear weapons, I assume you say no. Where's the grey area? Tanks, submarines, and jets?

The reason that amendment made perfect sense is that one person could barely fire a round a minute. Today, if all arms are on the table, you could destroy whole cities in theory. It doesn't take much to kill hundreds of people with the right training. If nothing else, cognizance of the advancements in military technology makes it impossible not to at least reevaluate the purpose and future of that amendment.

Thing is...citizens have no use, and cannot afford, nor would know how to operate, a nuclear weapon. Besides, you'd be taking yourself out in the process.

Let's stick to firearms.