|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth.
It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it.
|
On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it.
Well, technically, there would be a bit of monetary cost and nuisance value, especially if licensed dealers ended up being forced to do waiting lists, or by appointment only, just because of the new influx with private sales.
In particular, there could be some added nuisance if people didn't have easy access to a gun shop that did transfers.
Also, your response isn't addressing his point. It's not a loophole unique to gun shows, it's just a common environment for a private sale.
|
On February 04 2013 05:12 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Well, technically, there would be a bit of monetary cost and nuisance value, especially if licensed dealers ended up being forced to do waiting lists, or by appointment only, just because of the new influx with private sales. In particular, there could be some added nuisance if people didn't have easy access to a gun shop that did transfers. Also, your response isn't addressing his point. It's not a loophole unique to gun shows, it's just a common environment for a private sale.
FFL transfers bring a profit to shops that process them and I've never been anywhere in the US that doesn't have an FFL licensed dealer in driving range. Besides inconvenience isn't a reason for letting felons and what have you purchase guns As for private sales I thought it was implied that I think private sales need to go through FFL transfer so yes, I am addressing his point.
|
On February 04 2013 05:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:12 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Well, technically, there would be a bit of monetary cost and nuisance value, especially if licensed dealers ended up being forced to do waiting lists, or by appointment only, just because of the new influx with private sales. In particular, there could be some added nuisance if people didn't have easy access to a gun shop that did transfers. Also, your response isn't addressing his point. It's not a loophole unique to gun shows, it's just a common environment for a private sale. FFL transfers bring a profit to shops that process them and I've never been anywhere in the US that doesn't have an FFL licensed dealer in driving range. Besides inconvenience isn't a reason for letting felons and what have you purchase guns.
I personally agree. I wouldn't buy a gun from outside my immediate family without an FFL anyways, just in case. However, you said it "wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen". Hassle and money is, in fact, an effect. Most people tend to concur with that reasoning.
|
On February 04 2013 05:21 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:17 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 05:12 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Well, technically, there would be a bit of monetary cost and nuisance value, especially if licensed dealers ended up being forced to do waiting lists, or by appointment only, just because of the new influx with private sales. In particular, there could be some added nuisance if people didn't have easy access to a gun shop that did transfers. Also, your response isn't addressing his point. It's not a loophole unique to gun shows, it's just a common environment for a private sale. FFL transfers bring a profit to shops that process them and I've never been anywhere in the US that doesn't have an FFL licensed dealer in driving range. Besides inconvenience isn't a reason for letting felons and what have you purchase guns. I personally agree. I wouldn't buy a gun from outside my immediate family without an FFL anyways, just in case. However, you said it "wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen". Hassle and money is, in fact, an effect. Most people tend to concur with that reasoning.
By that I meant it won't prevent anyone from owning a firearm as long as they are legit. IMO it's just one of the many obvious places to begin in our efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands. In contrast to things like assault weapon bans.
|
On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way.
That...is something else...
Just last night I had to draw my service weapon on four different occasions during a ten hour shift. The first one involved some man loading a shotgun in front of wallgreens like he was about to rob the place(He was a moron), the second one involved pulling over a car full of five armed robbery suspects, the third one was with some guy that locked himself in a hotel room while tripping on meth with two loaded guns. Finally the fourth one was providing lethal cover for another officer because the man we were dealing with in question was holding a knife to his throat.
I wonder about this country sometimes.
|
On February 04 2013 05:23 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:21 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 05:17 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 05:12 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Well, technically, there would be a bit of monetary cost and nuisance value, especially if licensed dealers ended up being forced to do waiting lists, or by appointment only, just because of the new influx with private sales. In particular, there could be some added nuisance if people didn't have easy access to a gun shop that did transfers. Also, your response isn't addressing his point. It's not a loophole unique to gun shows, it's just a common environment for a private sale. FFL transfers bring a profit to shops that process them and I've never been anywhere in the US that doesn't have an FFL licensed dealer in driving range. Besides inconvenience isn't a reason for letting felons and what have you purchase guns. I personally agree. I wouldn't buy a gun from outside my immediate family without an FFL anyways, just in case. However, you said it "wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen". Hassle and money is, in fact, an effect. Most people tend to concur with that reasoning. By that I meant it won't prevent anyone from owning a firearm as long as they are legit. IMO it's just one of the many obvious places to begin in our efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Something logical that will actually have an effect unlike things like assault weapon bans.
Like I said, I agree. It certainly makes more sense than a lot of other nonsense. Better regulation and oversight of purchases is the correct solution. It makes more sense than trying prohibition, or banning cosmetic features.
Unfortunately, our politics are so radically polarized, that it's hard to get either side to compromise.
And let's face it, it's hard to believe anti-gun politicians want a good, rational compromise when they try to pass really stupid shit.
|
United States24750 Posts
On February 04 2013 05:24 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. That...is something else... Just last night I had to draw my service weapon on four different occasions during a ten hour shift. The first one involved some man loading a shotgun in front of wallgreens like he was about to rob the place(He was a moron), the second one involved pulling over a car full of five armed robbery suspects, the third one was with some guy that locked himself in a hotel room while tripping on meth with two loaded guns. Finally the fourth one was providing lethal cover for another officer because the man we were dealing with in question was holding a knife to his throat. I wonder about this country sometimes.
Damn, that's one rough shift! I assume you are working in one of the 'tough' areas to have such a record, yesterday. This isn't a wealthy suburb XD
|
On February 04 2013 05:24 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. That...is something else... Just last night I had to draw my service weapon on four different occasions during a ten hour shift. The first one involved some man loading a shotgun in front of wallgreens like he was about to rob the place(He was a moron), the second one involved pulling over a car full of five armed robbery suspects, the third one was with some guy that locked himself in a hotel room while tripping on meth with two loaded guns. Finally the fourth one was providing lethal cover for another officer because the man we were dealing with in question was holding a knife to his throat. I wonder about this country sometimes.
And if people weren't allowed to own or carry guns, three out of four of those cases wouldn't have happened.
|
On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it.
Worst logic ever.
Regulations to prevent Ukrainians from eating in the USSR were coming and they shouldn't have opposed them, but rather embraced their dead.
I was good up until that. I disagreed, but I was good with it.
|
In the part of The United States I live in, I don't see that people can be trusted not to text on their phone while driving a car. Yet, people some seem to think we can trust the public with guns outside of their homes.
|
On February 04 2013 07:34 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Worst logic ever. Regulations to prevent Ukrainians from eating in the USSR were coming and they shouldn't have opposed them, but rather embraced their dead. I was good up until that. I disagreed, but I was good with it.
Regulations to prevent people from owning slaves are coming and we shouldn't oppose them, but rather embrace them!
|
On February 04 2013 05:28 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:23 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 05:21 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 05:17 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 05:12 JingleHell wrote:On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Well, technically, there would be a bit of monetary cost and nuisance value, especially if licensed dealers ended up being forced to do waiting lists, or by appointment only, just because of the new influx with private sales. In particular, there could be some added nuisance if people didn't have easy access to a gun shop that did transfers. Also, your response isn't addressing his point. It's not a loophole unique to gun shows, it's just a common environment for a private sale. FFL transfers bring a profit to shops that process them and I've never been anywhere in the US that doesn't have an FFL licensed dealer in driving range. Besides inconvenience isn't a reason for letting felons and what have you purchase guns. I personally agree. I wouldn't buy a gun from outside my immediate family without an FFL anyways, just in case. However, you said it "wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen". Hassle and money is, in fact, an effect. Most people tend to concur with that reasoning. By that I meant it won't prevent anyone from owning a firearm as long as they are legit. IMO it's just one of the many obvious places to begin in our efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Something logical that will actually have an effect unlike things like assault weapon bans. Like I said, I agree. It certainly makes more sense than a lot of other nonsense. Better regulation and oversight of purchases is the correct solution. It makes more sense than trying prohibition, or banning cosmetic features. Unfortunately, our politics are so radically polarized, that it's hard to get either side to compromise. And let's face it, it's hard to believe anti-gun politicians want a good, rational compromise when they try to pass really stupid shit.
Our politics aren't polarized. There's the side that's pro-gun and then there's the side that's pro-gun but actively passes legislation which hurts <~1% of gun owners / sellers.
|
On February 04 2013 08:03 Koronin wrote:
In the part of The United States I live in, I don't see that people can be trusted not to text on their phone while driving a car. Yet, people some seem to think we can trust the public with guns outside of their homes.
Joking aside, if I can't trust anyone, why wouldn't I want a gun? Apparently I can't trust the public.
|
On February 04 2013 08:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 07:34 Kimaker wrote:On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Worst logic ever. Regulations to prevent Ukrainians from eating in the USSR were coming and they shouldn't have opposed them, but rather embraced their dead. I was good up until that. I disagreed, but I was good with it. Regulations to prevent people from owning slaves are coming and we shouldn't oppose them, but rather embrace them!
I think you just agreed with me? O_o?
...maybe?
|
On February 04 2013 07:34 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:06 heliusx wrote:On February 04 2013 03:44 Millitron wrote:On February 04 2013 03:00 Leporello wrote:http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-30/opinions/36647196_1_nra-wayne-lapierre-background-checksFor example, the NRA doesn't even want background checks on people who buy weapons, nor do they want to close the "gun-show loophole". They're paid by gun manufacturers, to undoubtedly help them sell as many guns to as many people in this country as possible. This is the gun-control debate in America. It isn't about taking away people's right to own a gun. It's about simple regulations that we have to fight tooth-and-nail for, because the pro-gun lobby has inundated the discussion with so much nonsense and hyperbole. I believe there is a discussion to be had about whether or not people should own guns, but it's really a GIANT strawman at this point in time. We need to simply make more coherent and effective regulations to prevent criminals and would-be criminals from buying guns. I think the most important step we take as a nation is that more people come to see that the NRA and pro-gun lobby opposes these small regulations, just as they opposed The Brady Bill, because they are very directly in the business of selling weapons. And every purchase counts. It sure seems to be about taking people's guns when all the legislation is bullshit like high capacity magazine bans and "Assault Weapon" bans. I'm all for background checks, but not much else. Oh, and there isn't really a "gun-show loophole". It's not like its ok to sell guns as a private seller at a gun-show but nowhere else. Private sales without background checks are legal almost everywhere. The "gun-show loophole" is a propaganda term, because gun-control proponents know that calling it private sale regulation would be a tough sell. I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the truth. It's called a loophole because that's exactly what it is. It allows people who are not allowed to purchase weapons to acquire weapons with zero regulation. You have no good reason to not perform checks on private sales and opposing such a regulation has nothing to do with the second amendment. You need to go through the government to sell a car and be able to use it on the roads why not a firearm? What reason could you possibly have for opposing criminals from buying weapons this way? Closing the loophole wouldn't effect any law abiding citizen. Regulations to prevent certain people from buying weapons is coming and you shouldn't oppose it but rather embrace it. Worst logic ever. Regulations to prevent Ukrainians from eating in the USSR were coming and they shouldn't have opposed them, but rather embraced their dead. I was good up until that. I disagreed, but I was good with it.
Logic? If you had understood the context of my post you would know my logic behind approving those regulations doesn't have anything to do with conforming but the fact that it won't prevent legit buyers from acquiring firearms only criminals. That's why I think he should embrace it. If you cant rebute me in context to my post I don't see the "logic" in replying.
|
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time when that something can disrupt civilized society?
|
1019 Posts
On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society?
Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL.
What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings?
By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different?
|
On February 04 2013 07:24 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 05:24 Jayme wrote:On February 04 2013 02:19 Kuni wrote:
Of course people should be allowed to own and carry guns, but please, only far, faaar away from where I live.
Most of the police officers around here have never had to unsheathe their service weapon ... not even once, even throughout decades of service. I would very much like it to stay that way. That...is something else... Just last night I had to draw my service weapon on four different occasions during a ten hour shift. The first one involved some man loading a shotgun in front of wallgreens like he was about to rob the place(He was a moron), the second one involved pulling over a car full of five armed robbery suspects, the third one was with some guy that locked himself in a hotel room while tripping on meth with two loaded guns. Finally the fourth one was providing lethal cover for another officer because the man we were dealing with in question was holding a knife to his throat. I wonder about this country sometimes. And if people weren't allowed to own or carry guns, three out of four of those cases wouldn't have happened.
Actually the only one that wouldn't have happened was the guy loading his shotgun into his vehicle getting a cop pointing a gun at him for no reason.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society?
It's embarrassing the way people like you talk and actually think that you will convince gun owners to give up their guns. Why don't you try not talking like they're five years old and stop acting like you're some little tinpot god who can tell people to shut up and what to do.
It's amazing, the authoritarian or totalitarian impulses you find among gun grabbers. They really, really, really like the prospect of forcing people to submit to their will and do what they're told.
Here's a threat for you: a guy like you who has no problem telling people they should just shut up and find a new hobby and that their concerns and beliefs mean absolutely zero so they should get into line like all the other good little proles. People like you are the foundation that others build tyranny on.
|
United States24750 Posts
On February 04 2013 09:20 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2013 09:10 EpiK wrote:
answer: no.
It's embarrassing that this is still a hotly debated issue in the states. A gun is just a tool that efficiently pierces through flesh. That's what it was made for and that's its most common use. Why the hell would you give that to a civilian? Even with strict regulation and training programs, why run the risk of giving people such a destructive tool? What benefits could there be? And if you say self-defense then instead of just focusing on ways to arm civilians look at why civilians feel the need to arm themselves in the first place. What danger poses a threat to them, and what's the root of that threat?
Hunters and gun enthusiasts should just shut up and find a new hobby. Yeah, they may be sensible enough not to use their guns irresponsibly but realize that not all people who have access to these guns have the same restraint. Why defend something for the sake of a mere past-time that that something can disrupt civilized society? Brother, you risk the wrath of all the frenzy alex joneses in TL. What I don't understand about gun proponents is the die-hard, absolutist defense of gun rights. We can always respect the 2nd amendment while having reasonable laws in place. But stronger gun laws don't prevent all mass shootings? By that logic, why do we require people to wear seatbelts in cars if seatbelts don't save people 100% of the time? Why wear a helmet in war if it only increases the chance of you surviving a headshot by 25%? That 25% is worthless simply because it isn't 100%? What the hell? There's no difference here. Pretty much every sensible, law-abiding citizen has the right to own a car, a gun, a personal plane, etc. But those are all things that can be used to cause damage to themselves or to other people. That's why our governments require us to have drivers license, pilots license, etc. Does requiring a drivers license somehow infringe upon your right to drive a car? Is it an evil government encroachment on our personal liberties? If the answer is no, then why should guns be any different?
There are people both on TL and elsewhere that advocate for almost total removal of guns from society. As a result, people who disagree with that often overcompensate to the point where they are against any seemingly anti-gun ideas. Many people also believe that a new gun restriction opens the door to a stricter one down the road. It is not surprising why people on the pro-gun side act the way they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
