• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 17:18
CEST 23:18
KST 06:18
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202551RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams6Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 728 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 495 496 497 498 499 891 Next
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.
DeepElemBlues
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States5079 Posts
May 09 2013 18:30 GMT
#9921
Wrong. Under current laws, legal gun owners can legally give criminals firearms by claiming ignorance. This is the main case that the law addresses.


I would suggest you go test this assertion out and see how well it works out for you when you're arrested and thrown in jail.
no place i'd rather be than the satellite of love
Nachtwind
Profile Joined June 2011
Germany1130 Posts
May 09 2013 18:31 GMT
#9922
On May 10 2013 02:39 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 09 2013 06:39 mavignon wrote:
I don't mean to come across trollish but the very fact that this subject is mostly (only?) debated in the US and other countries where it is legal to own firearms is quite telling.


Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of.


That's the way many societies were in antiquity. If you were rich enough to buy a weapon, you'd have one in your house somewhere.


Examples?
invisible tetris level master
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 18:37:53
May 09 2013 18:35 GMT
#9923
On May 10 2013 03:18 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Probably not.

What your new law would do would allow people to transfer guns illegally and laugh at the government's inability to stop them instead of pretending to be ignorant. Criminals and people who consort with criminals usually aren't too respectful of government and its laws.

Giving a gun to someone with the result being that gun is used in a crime means you're facing some big trouble. Giving a gun to someone who is not allowed to have a gun is again already illegal. I think your understanding of current law is flawed.


You heard it here everyone. Might as well just get rid of all laws. After all they are not effective at preventing crime. If you think you're held responsible for what someone does with a gun you sell them, well that shows exactly who has a flawed understanding.

Also did you make it look like all those quotes are of me? I didn't say half the stuff in your post.
dude bro.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 09 2013 18:37 GMT
#9924
On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.


Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point.

It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people.


This is true for the first few nukes.

Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world.

TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary.

Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 18:40:58
May 09 2013 18:39 GMT
#9925
On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.


Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point.

It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people.


This is true for the first few nukes.

Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world.

TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary.

Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.


I would be embarrassed to resort to "the nuke argument" in a gun debate, as should you. I think the discussion would go much smoother without using that 'argument'.
dude bro.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
May 09 2013 18:39 GMT
#9926
On May 10 2013 03:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Show nested quote +
Wrong. Under current laws, legal gun owners can legally give criminals firearms by claiming ignorance. This is the main case that the law addresses.


I would suggest you go test this assertion out and see how well it works out for you when you're arrested and thrown in jail.

To sink to the level of debate you have just presented;
Nuh-uh.
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
May 09 2013 18:41 GMT
#9927
On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.


Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point.

It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people.


This is true for the first few nukes.

Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world.

TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary.

Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.


We can sit here and be obnoxious armchair philosophers about this topic, but the real world (and the political world) doesn't care about these distinguishing factors.

"Destroying property on a mass scale" vs. "killing people" is a completely irrelevant difference when it comes to regulating access to an item, especially because "destroying property" invariably includes killing lots and lots of people.

The point is that y'all need to stop with all of this obnoxious arguing over semantics that have zero relevance to the fact that there is a massive societal difference between a gun, a car, and alcohol, with a gun being far more dangerous than the other two objects, and this danger being an intrinsic part of what the item is.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 18:47:10
May 09 2013 18:43 GMT
#9928
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:
The rate of gun-related murders has dropped by almost half in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though more than eight of 10 Americans say otherwise, according to a study by the Pew Research Center.

The report, released amid a nationwide debate over whether to enact new measures to curb firearms violence, shows that gun- related killings peaked in 1993 at seven deaths per 100,000 Americans before descending rapidly to 3.8 deaths per 100,000 by 2000. By 2010, Pew found, the rate had fallen to 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people.

Yet a majority of Americans, 56 percent, say gun crime is higher than it was in 1993, while 26 percent say it’s the same, according to the survey by the Washington-based group. Just 12 percent told Pew the rate was lower.

“Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago,” the study said.

The mass shooting at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in December boosted support for gun-control legislation, according to another Pew poll, taken in January.

Source

Just another example of how media attention manipulates public perception.

Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/

On May 09 2013 08:18 Nachtwind wrote:
[quote]

Because it´s a unique theme. No other country in the world has this (wished?) steady arming of their normal citizen over decades of years in the history of human mankind i can think of.

Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of.


Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.

Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.

Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand.


If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc.

I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:
On May 09 2013 02:51 Shiori wrote:
I don't really get the comparison to alcohol. The reason people are worried about guns isn't because people accidentally shoot themselves, but because they can be construed as a threat to other people and because they affect the potency of violence by way of being accessible. In the case of alcohol, liver disease only affects the person who drinks the alcohol, not others. Any interpersonal effects of alcohol (e.g. drunk driving) that result in dangerous situations for other people are already illegal.

If we really want to get into it, I'd argue that excessive intake of alcohol is immoral anyhow, but it doesn't require legal measures because, ultimately, alcohol abuse only kills the abuser; any interpersonal affects resulting from alcohol abuse (assault, sexual assault, drunk driving, etc) are already illegal.

And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.


Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.

Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states.

Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

On May 10 2013 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.


Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point.

It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people.


This is true for the first few nukes.

Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world.

TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary.

Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.


We can sit here and be obnoxious armchair philosophers about this topic, but the real world (and the political world) doesn't care about these distinguishing factors.

"Destroying property on a mass scale" vs. "killing people" is a completely irrelevant difference when it comes to regulating access to an item, especially because "destroying property" invariably includes killing lots and lots of people.

The point is that y'all need to stop with all of this obnoxious arguing over semantics that have zero relevance to the fact that there is a massive societal difference between a gun, a car, and alcohol, with a gun being far more dangerous than the other two objects, and this danger being an intrinsic part of what the item is.

More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.

If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?
Who called in the fleet?
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
May 09 2013 18:44 GMT
#9929
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On May 09 2013 12:57 AmorphousPhoenix wrote:
[quote]
Source

Just another example of how media attention manipulates public perception.

Edit: oops, apparently a repost :/

[quote]
Can you think of ANY issue where the public is moving towards more freedom, instead of government control? Marijuana legalization is probably the only exception that I can think of.


Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.

Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.

Your response, Millitron, was absolutely perfect. Nobody wants to ban high capacity/fast pouring beer cans or cars with a speedometer that reaches 150 because that is entirely illogical for a number of reasons. The only reason people want to ban the equivalent with guns is because they do not understand them. And people are afraid of what they do not understand.


If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc.

I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On May 09 2013 12:03 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
And shooting people is already illegal too. But you don't see people calling for banning high-capacity beer bottles, or beer-cans designed to pour faster. You don't hear any outcry for banning extremely strong alcohol.


Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.

Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states.

Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 18:51:20
May 09 2013 18:48 GMT
#9930
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]

Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.

Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.

[quote]

If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc.

I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]

Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.

Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states.

Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?


All you need is the previous owner to sign over the title and a notary.

edit; a little research shows most states don't even require a notary.
dude bro.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 18:51:11
May 09 2013 18:50 GMT
#9931
On May 10 2013 03:48 heliusx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

[quote]
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?


All you need is the previous owner to sign over the title and a notary.

Yes, that's my point, the transaction requires a third party government affiliate to guarantee the terms and chain of custody, which is what we're suggesting is preferable insofar as private firearm transactions are concerned.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
May 09 2013 18:52 GMT
#9932
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
On May 09 2013 23:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]

Negative liberty? Marijuana legalization, gay/lesbian rights.

Positive liberty? Minimum wage laws, education reform, healthcare reform.

[quote]

If you can't see the difference between a gun and beer/cars, you're willfully ignorant. The primary purpose of a gun is to kill other people. It is a tool specifically meant to cause death in other living beings (mostly, and most importantly, in other human beings), whereas cars are made for transportation, alcohol is a beverage, knives have a multitude of primary uses besides killing (and are significantly harder to kill with than guns), etc.

I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

On May 10 2013 00:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]

Alcoholic products undergo pretty close scrutiny, especially new ones. Look at what happened with Four Loko! Then there's absinthe, which was banned in the U.S. until the product was changed into something entirely different. The bans on homemade liquor map pretty closely to potential future bans on 3D printing guns and bullets.

Everclear is also highly regulated and banned in many states.

Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?

Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.
Who called in the fleet?
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
May 09 2013 18:52 GMT
#9933
On May 10 2013 03:50 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:48 heliusx wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]

Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?


All you need is the previous owner to sign over the title and a notary.

Yes, that's my point, the transaction requires a third party government affiliate to guarantee the terms and chain of custody, which is what we're suggesting is preferable insofar as private firearm transactions are concerned.


Fair enough. I misunderstood and assumed you thought dmv registration was required.
dude bro.
heliusx
Profile Blog Joined May 2012
United States2306 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 18:56:33
May 09 2013 18:54 GMT
#9934
On May 10 2013 03:52 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

[quote]
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?

Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.


While hypothetically you could buy a junker and not get a title transfer and use it on your private property, fact is in the eyes of the law it's not actually under your ownership without a title and it could be taken from you by the title owner.
dude bro.
Holy_AT
Profile Joined July 2010
Austria978 Posts
May 09 2013 18:55 GMT
#9935
But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

I hope not ...

The state should regulate and build a legal frame work on how people can interact.
For example if your neighbor decides to build a nuclear waste dump next to your house without any rules regulations and laws, would you really like that ?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 09 2013 18:55 GMT
#9936
On May 10 2013 03:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On May 10 2013 00:56 -VapidSlug- wrote:
No I am not misunderstanding it, I am questioning its value. Why is "purpose" an argument if it is entirely unrelated to what actually happens. If the intended purpose for a gun is to kill people while the intended purpose of knives is not, then why would knives be more of a threat? There is a disconnect between something's purpose and the results of its use--as we can see with alcohol, cars, knives, bats, computers, pretty much anything. Otherwise, if purpose actually mattered, Ted Kennedy's car would not have killed more people than my guns.


Yes, you are misunderstanding, because you literally didn't reply to ANY part of my point.

It isn't about the purpose of the invention; it's about what the tool is effectively used for. It doesn't matter if you, through some convoluted way, rig a nuke to hold up your clothes. There are countless other tools that are more efficient at that task and the only thing that a nuke IS good at is killing people.


This is true for the first few nukes.

Most nukes were made as a deterrent and are not, shall we say, "intended for combat." What a nuke is specifically good at is applying heavy short term and long term damage to an area for little cost of time or execution expenditure. That it kills people is secondary to the "level a city" portion of its explosion. Biological weapons are specifically aimed at killing people, bombs are made at destroying property to shatter moral (and apply apply heavy casualties as well, but the moral is the big part). Nukes changed the dynamic because the boom was so big it transformed bombs from being a device to break the people's will and transformed it into a killing device that breaks the people's world.

TLDR: Nukes were intentionally made to deter violence while being specifically designed to destroy property--that it is good at killing people is secondary.

Now, I would hope that if someone had a nuclear warhead in his backyard being used to hang clothes that the military would do *something* about it.


We can sit here and be obnoxious armchair philosophers about this topic, but the real world (and the political world) doesn't care about these distinguishing factors.

"Destroying property on a mass scale" vs. "killing people" is a completely irrelevant difference when it comes to regulating access to an item, especially because "destroying property" invariably includes killing lots and lots of people.

The point is that y'all need to stop with all of this obnoxious arguing over semantics that have zero relevance to the fact that there is a massive societal difference between a gun, a car, and alcohol, with a gun being far more dangerous than the other two objects, and this danger being an intrinsic part of what the item is.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with your stance.

I was mostly pointing out that nukes are not made specifically to kill people--but even so, it is still heavily regulated. If Iran and North Korea can get flack as a country for even testing nuclear capability, then joe schmoe hanging laundry should be just as scrutinized for fiddling with nuclear weapons.

Not because nukes were designed to kill people--but because it's a fucking nuke and not some fire cracker you pop at new years. Dangerous weapons are dangerous for a reason. Used properly and no one gets hurt--albeit if it's used properly. If the US is so dangerous and filled with so much "whatever" that you need a gun to stay safe--do you really want to make it easy for those "whatevers" to also get guns?
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
-VapidSlug-
Profile Joined June 2012
United States108 Posts
May 09 2013 18:57 GMT
#9937
On May 10 2013 03:22 heliusx wrote:
current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal and just pretend to be ignorant. if it became illegal to sell a gun to someone without a background check plenty of people would think twice since they would now be breaking the law.


I think a lot of people are VERY ignorant about the bureaucratic laws governing firearm purchases--this includes you. Honestly, if I was allowed to conduct a background check before I sold one out of my collection, I would. But the law actually forbids it. It is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon, but you have to trust the purchaser's word. The way the FFL-related laws are written, at the moment, actually forbids private sellers from performing background checks. Why don't we first try removing illogical laws from the books? Why don't we remove the FFL requirement and just allow everyone who sells a firearm to perform a check. I would even do it for a small fee as I would just add that cost to the firearm I am selling.
Rotting organs ripping grinding, Biological discordance, Birthday equals self abhorrence, Years keep passing aging always, Mutate into vapid slugs
Millitron
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2611 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 19:04:01
May 09 2013 18:59 GMT
#9938
On May 10 2013 03:54 heliusx wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:52 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]

Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?

Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.


While hypothetically you could buy a junker and not get a title transfer and use it on your private property, fact is in the eyes of the law it's not actually under your ownership without a title and it could be taken from you by the title owner.

I fully admit I'm no expert, but some research seems to show that in most cases you only get into problems if you try to take the vehicle out of state. Most states don't seem to care within their borders.

On May 10 2013 03:57 -VapidSlug- wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:22 heliusx wrote:
current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal and just pretend to be ignorant. if it became illegal to sell a gun to someone without a background check plenty of people would think twice since they would now be breaking the law.


I think a lot of people are VERY ignorant about the bureaucratic laws governing firearm purchases--this includes you. Honestly, if I was allowed to conduct a background check before I sold one out of my collection, I would. But the law actually forbids it. It is illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon, but you have to trust the purchaser's word. The way the FFL-related laws are written, at the moment, actually forbids private sellers from performing background checks. Why don't we first try removing illogical laws from the books? Why don't we remove the FFL requirement and just allow everyone who sells a firearm to perform a check. I would even do it for a small fee as I would just add that cost to the firearm I am selling.

As long as they don't set some ridiculous fee that amounts to a ban, and as long as the check just returns a yes/no answer, so as to not violate the purchaser's privacy, I would agree, I'd probably be ok with that.

Before anyone jumps on me for flip-flopping, I've been on the fence about background checks for about 150 pages.
Who called in the fleet?
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18825 Posts
May 09 2013 19:00 GMT
#9939
On May 10 2013 03:52 Millitron wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 10 2013 03:44 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 03:43 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:45 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:42 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:38 farvacola wrote:
On May 10 2013 02:35 Jormundr wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:56 Millitron wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 10 2013 01:37 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I, and many other gun owners have never killed a single thing with a gun. We like to shoot paper or empty soda cans, not people.

Guns are designed to throw a tiny piece of metal at high speeds. What is in front of that piece of metal is not the gun's fault. Alcohol is "designed" to impair judgment and motor skills. If someone does something irresponsible when impaired, it's not the alcohol's fault.

[quote]
Absinthe isn't illegal in the US, and its still pretty much the same as its always been. Sure, it can't have Thujone, but it barely had any to begin with. The bans on homemade liquor have nothing to do with safety, they're there because homemade liquor represents lost tax income.


Wait a second? The bans/restrictions on liquor doesn't count but the bans/restrictions on guns do?

They do, but they're not passed by saying how its saving millions of children or some nonsense like that.

"This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution."
How's that for nonsense?
First off, the bill doesn't criminalize transfer. It criminalizes transfer without a background check.
2. OH NO, MY FRIENDS NEIGHBORS AND MANY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE GETTING VICTIMIZED(think of the children!)
3. Selling guns without a background check is a fundamental right?

But, but, but, my uncle has a criminal record and I REALLY wanna give him my gun!


I think everyone wants to keep firearms away from people who will misuse it. The question is more about the intrusiveness of background checks and whether the State has a moral right in intruding in on private transactions that it does not hold any claim to.

I don't think background checks are very intrusive in the slightest and these measures are a step in the right direction, but I am curious as to what right people think the government has over private transactions in such a way that it threatens violence for non-compliance. This is an argument I've run into, and frankly I'm tired of debating it because I don't know what to say when others say it.

Private firearm transactions ought to work precisely like private automobile transactions. The only reason gun rights folk don't balk at the way automobile title transfers work is because there isn't an amendment in the constitution pertaining to cars lol.

You can buy a car from an individual with no registration or license, and you can drive it too. You only need a license and registration to drive said car on public roads.

I don't so much mind carry regulations, so long as they don't equate to a ban, since its for public property. The state really should get to say what can and can't go on on their land. But what I do with my property on my land shouldn't be the state's business.

You do realize that, without a title transfer, the previous owner of said car can legally seize it from your private property?

Title transfers aren't regulation, they're private property protection. A junker you buy to use on your private property wouldn't have a title and wouldn't need to be registered. At least at the state or federal level, as always local laws may vary.

If you do not own the title to said junker, than you cannot legally prove ownership, therefore opening yourself up to future legal problems in proving such a thing when the previous owner is suddenly strapped for cash and aware of your stupidity. It is in the government's and individual's interest to establish a baseline means of proving ownership, and it is along this vein that said system makes sense for guns. If you don't want to call it regulation, that's fine, the point is that the current state of private firearm sales make proving chain of custody rather difficult; add in a notary gun title requirement and suddenly the lines of ownership are much clearer.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-09 19:08:28
May 09 2013 19:04 GMT
#9940

More people die from cars and alcohol than from guns. And no, cars and alcohol aren't more common than guns, given that there's at least 100 million guns in the US, possibly as many as 300 million depending on whose stats you like.

If guns are more dangerous than cars and alcohol, and they're just as common, why don't guns kill more than cars or alcohol?


Guns and automobiles are roughly as common in the population and alcohol is far, far more popular (I would be stupefied if you tried to argue otherwise). Quick Google searches show that alcohol causes far more deaths/100,000 and guns/cars cause about the same amount per 100,000. Guess which one out of the latter two is more regulated? Hell, even alcohol is more regulated than guns in most states.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Prev 1 495 496 497 498 499 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 13h 42m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .248
Nathanias 241
ForJumy 88
ProTech65
StarCraft: Brood War
ivOry 9
Dota 2
monkeys_forever617
Counter-Strike
Fnx 1388
Stewie2K906
Foxcn605
Super Smash Bros
Liquid`Ken10
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu672
Other Games
summit1g4579
FrodaN3007
Dendi717
C9.Mang0194
PPMD35
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV47
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• musti20045 20
• davetesta12
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 50
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Other Games
• imaqtpie1669
• Shiphtur487
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
13h 42m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
16h 42m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
CSO Cup
1d 18h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 20h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.