|
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 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 someone who has sold a handful of guns in Louisiana (almost zero restrictions) and has purchased a few as well I'm pretty well aware of the process. You're welcome to point out where I was VERY ignorant to the bureaucratic laws. Personally, I think you made that assumption and statement because it makes you feel superior to other people but thats going off topic.
I stand by my opinion that mandatory checks on all sales are the way forward. It surely doesn't in fringe on my right to own firearms of course you're free to disagree but I would like to know why you think that is the case.
|
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.
Police could also (if they're feeling cheeky) impound it and charge you with GTA because you have no proof that you didn't steal it. You could tell the police to call the guy who sold it to you so that he could tell them that he sold you the car--but if the guy was also feeling cheeky he could say "wtf I've been looking for my car for ages!" and suddenly he has your money and he has his car back.
Now this won't normally happen due to the "don't be a dick" rule society at least pretends to follow. But without paperwork you can't prove anything.
|
On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +
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?
Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property.
On May 10 2013 04:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 03:54 heliusx wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Police could also (if they're feeling cheeky) impound it and charge you with GTA because you have no proof that you didn't steal it. You could tell the police to call the guy who sold it to you so that he could tell them that he sold you the car--but if the guy was also feeling cheeky he could say "wtf I've been looking for my car for ages!" and suddenly he has your money and he has his car back. Now this won't normally happen due to the "don't be a dick" rule society at least pretends to follow. But without paperwork you can't prove anything.
This is all assuming he actually had the title all along, selling the car without transferring the title would be fraud. I admit you'd have a tough time proving it, but it's still a crime.
If a car legitimately has no title, i.e. its been lost or was never registered in the first place, there's no problems with buying and using it on your own property.
|
On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property.
Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns?
|
On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property.
There are plenty of restrictions on automobile use/ownage/etc. You are required to register with the state (and actually qualify to use the vehicle) just to be able to operate a small automobile, and you need further training and registration for other types of automobiles; none of which is required in the vast majority of states. Not anyone can drive a tank, a semi, a combine, or various other vehicles on the road. Civilian cars aren't allowed to be able to go above a certain speed on most American roads. You receive large fines or potentially jail time for the slightest mis-use of your car. The list goes on and on. So no, automobiles are not as de-regulated as you are suggesting.
|
On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_Standards
Wrong again.
|
On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 10 2013 03:54 heliusx wrote: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:
[quote]
"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. Police could also (if they're feeling cheeky) impound it and charge you with GTA because you have no proof that you didn't steal it. You could tell the police to call the guy who sold it to you so that he could tell them that he sold you the car--but if the guy was also feeling cheeky he could say "wtf I've been looking for my car for ages!" and suddenly he has your money and he has his car back. Now this won't normally happen due to the "don't be a dick" rule society at least pretends to follow. But without paperwork you can't prove anything. This is all assuming he actually had the title all along, selling the car without transferring the title would be fraud. I admit you'd have a tough time proving it, but it's still a crime. If a car legitimately has no title, i.e. its been lost or was never registered in the first place, there's no problems with buying and using it on your own property.
When the Gun-way Patrol does regular and random checks throughout the year just to make sure your license is up to date and you're property is properly maintained, then we can talk.
|
On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns?
Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden.
On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again.
Again, this is only for public property.
|
On May 10 2013 03:59 Millitron wrote:
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.
I completely understand and I am on the fence about the requirement as well considering it is akin to proving your innocence. "Reasonable fees" have always been questionable. I mean something like $5, but how could this not be abused?
I think this is the biggest reason gun owners lash back so hard against people that want "reasonable control" is because "reasonable" is highly objective. In the 1934 National Firearms Act, they did not ban the production or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon and in fact stated "banning automatic firearms is unconstitutional." Instead, they placed a "reasonable" registration fee of $200 (about average 6 month salary at the time) on the sale or transfer of any fully-automatic.
The problem with "reasonable registration requirements" is that it is subject to the same abuse as a voter competency test. You don't want a certain demographic to vote or buy guns? The competency test changes to a reasonable verbal essay where you need to recite all 30 pages of state and federal regulations of (x)-category, verbatim.
On May 10 2013 04:06 heliusx wrote:As someone who has sold a handful of guns in Louisiana (almost zero restrictions) and has purchased a few as well I'm pretty well aware of the process. You're welcome to point out where I was VERY ignorant to the bureaucratic laws. Personally, I think you made that assumption and statement because it makes you feel superior to other people but thats going off topic.
I stand by my opinion that mandatory checks on all sales are the way forward. It surely doesn't in fringe on my right to own firearms of course you're free to disagree but I would like to know why you think that is the case.
Great, then if you are well aware of the process, that just means you willfully misrepresented the truth by saying "the current law allows you to transfer a gun to a criminal" when you should have said "the current law forbids you to determine if you are transferring guns to a criminal."
These are very different statements, as yours begs the need for increased state control while mine demands the state to be logical without adding additional and redundant laws to the pile.
Edit: No, I didn't make that statement because I feel "superior." I made that statement because people are always blaming private sellers for "giving guns to criminals" and basically starting a witch-hunt against us. Meanwhile, back in reality, private sellers are trying to let everyone know THAT IT'S ILLEGAL FOR US TO DO CHECKS.
|
On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/cars-uncle-sam-says-you-cant-have/
Wrong.
|
On May 10 2013 04:20 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/cars-uncle-sam-says-you-cant-have/Wrong.
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway.
|
On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:20 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:17 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:11 Piledriver wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. Not this again...A learner's license, a written test, and an actual driving test are required to drive a car, along with citations and fines for even minor violations. Can you say the same for guns? Those are only required for driving cars on public property. You don't need them for private property. The same IS true of guns in most states. Public carry licenses involve all sorts of classes and safety tests. In some states it's even outright forbidden. On May 10 2013 04:12 Jormundr wrote:On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:On May 10 2013 04:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:
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? Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_United_Stateshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_StandardsWrong again. Again, this is only for public property. http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/04/cars-uncle-sam-says-you-cant-have/Wrong. Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway.
Which part of you can't buy it in the US and if you drive it from Canada/Mexico into the US it will be impounded and crushed did you not understand?
I guess you could theoretically air drop it by night while dodging radar--but I think illegal importation of goods is also illegal.
You then have the feds showing up at your property, suspecting you of illegal importation and possession of an illegal vehicle, which allows them to come in to your property, take the car, and then crush it.
|
On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway.
I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar.
Edit for misunderstanding: I meant I had this argument with magpie
|
On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway. I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar.
Actually--no, that was me.
Urban residences don't have speed limit laws within private property since most places only have at most a garage or two of space and so speed limits are not needed since there's no room to drive. Noise and disturbing the peace complaints can be filed if you simply rev up your engine or kick dirt around your backyard.
Rural areas where you have enough space to actually drive around in are also places your allowed to shoot guns in. So... they both are treated equally.
|
On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway. I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar.
I think you would be better than Clint Eastwood at arguing against chairs.
On topic. If something cannot be legally manufactured in a country, and cannot be legally imported into a country, then I believe it logically follows that it cannot be legally owned in that country.
|
On May 10 2013 04:34 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:23 Millitron wrote:
Where does that article say you can't have those cars on private property? All the restrictions it talks about are from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. My private property isn't a highway. I had this argument several pages back, it is pointless. He simply does not understand. I think the most relevant response he had was something like "not everyone has enough private property" or something similar. Edit for misunderstanding: I meant I had this argument with magpie
I'm pretty sure a truck can transport most small and mid sized vehicles quite easily, but good luck getting one across a border if it's illegal for a private citizen to own.
|
On May 10 2013 04:42 Jormundr wrote:
I think you would be better than Clint Eastwood at arguing against chairs.
On topic. If something cannot be legally manufactured in a country, and cannot be legally imported into a country, then I believe it logically follows that it cannot be legally owned in that country.
It logically follows, yes, but there are exceptions. Fully-automatic weapons fit all of the above criteria. They cannot be produced or imported for private purchase, but can be transferred and owned with a $200 tax. But only the rich can afford them as a limited supply grandfathered the 1986 Hughes Amendment in FOPA.
|
On May 10 2013 04:48 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:42 Jormundr wrote:
I think you would be better than Clint Eastwood at arguing against chairs.
On topic. If something cannot be legally manufactured in a country, and cannot be legally imported into a country, then I believe it logically follows that it cannot be legally owned in that country. It logically follows, yes, but there are exceptions. Fully-automatic weapons fit all of the above criteria. They cannot be produced or imported for private purchase, but can be transferred and owned with a $200 tax. But only the rich can afford them as a limited supply grandfathered the 1986 Hughes Amendment in FOPA.
Here is the original line of reasoning:
On May 10 2013 04:08 Millitron wrote:
Depends. In many states there's bans on high-capacity magazines, and fully-automatic guns are almost banned nationwide. I don't see any particular types of cars, or car features being banned, especially not on private property.
Your comment has nothing to do with that. Please stop derailing.
|
On May 10 2013 04:58 Jormundr wrote:
Your comment has nothing to do with that. Please stop derailing.
Sorry, you are right, my comment does have nothing to do with that but that isn't the post I quoted. My comment was directly related to your post as you assumed that if something is illegal to manufacture and import it implies it is illegal to own. You are outright wrong by saying this.
It doesn't matter how many federal inspection/regulation/wired articles/whatever law things from wikipedia you post, it does not discount the fact that it is legal for me to build a car from ground up, in my garage, that doesn't have headlights or turn signals, doesn't meet any emission, CAFE, or any EPA standard, and I am ok to drive that thing on my property however fast/often as I want. The same is not true with guns.
It's confusing me how this weird car conversation keeps popping up, but my appologies for derailing your car-talk in the gun thread.
|
On May 10 2013 05:31 -VapidSlug- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2013 04:58 Jormundr wrote:
Your comment has nothing to do with that. Please stop derailing. Sorry, you are right, my comment does have nothing to do with that but that isn't the post I quoted. My comment was directly related to your post as you assumed that if something is illegal to manufacture and import it implies it is illegal to own. You are outright wrong by saying this. It doesn't matter how many federal inspection/regulation/wired articles/whatever law things from wikipedia you post, it does not discount the fact that it is legal for me to build a car from ground up, in my garage, that doesn't have headlights or turn signals, doesn't meet any emission, CAFE, or any EPA standard, and I am ok to drive that thing on my property however fast/often as I want. The same is not true with guns. It's confusing me how this weird car conversation keeps popping up, but my appologies for derailing your car-talk in the gun thread.
Stratos and Militron brought this segway up--if you have problems with it talk to them about it 
Pro gun people are the ones who enjoy talking about how cars kill more people, gun control people are merely pointing out that that is why there are so many restrictions and laws and bans against cars.
Also, people are outright printing guns without getting into trouble, so I don't see how its relevant to state that you can build a car and not get in trouble.
Now if you build a car designed exactly like the illegal cars out there--then that can be impounded too since that would be manufacturing an illegal product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
