Can one be for guns AND gun control?

[Curtland1015]

I'm all for people being able to own guns. I'm perfectly fine with it. But I'm against, for example, the legal loophole that allows gun shows to just sell guns to anyone who walks in off the street with no checks.

Is this "allowed", or am I not being "black and white" enough on the subject?

:shrug:

[MADem]

1. Sure. nt

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. I am. I don't worry about rifles. They're used - and absued - differently from handguns. nt

[marmar]

8. +1

n/t

[benEzra]

55. Even rifles the pro-ban lobby tags with scary names?

Yes. I am. I don't worry about rifles. They're used - and abused - differently from handguns.

Even rifles the pro-ban lobby tags with scary names?



That is the most popular centerfire target rifle in America, BTW.

[jcarterhero]

3. Of course

In the same way one would feel about drugs/alcohol.

[X_Digger]

4. A lot of us are fine with where the line is drawn right now..

.. but would like to see an option for the public to be able to take advantage of NICS for private transfers (once privacy issues have been hashed out.)

[sandnsea]

12. That is a really good idea

What privacy issues? If you know you have issues that would prevent you from buying a gun, then don't submit to the check. What else could come up in gun check?

[X_Digger]

16. The privacy issue is..

.. having to hand over enough information to a seller that an unscrupulous person could steal your identity.

Down in the gungeon we've talked over a lot of different proposals that would allow me as a seller to know that you, as a buyer, are not on the prohibited list of people who are not eligible to own a firearm while still preserving anonymous firearms ownership and the buyer's identity.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if a seller asked for a xerox of my driver's license, but I understand not everyone would be cool with that.

[sandnsea]

20. I thought you'd go to the police

And the buyer would give the info to the police, like you have to do when you get fingerprinted to work around kids.

[X_Digger]

24. No, that would preclude anonymous ownership..

.. as well as burden the police department. I'd like to see a barcode on the back of a driver's license that I can call a 1-800#, read the number to someone, and get a yes or no answer.

[sandnsea]

25. So the DMV runs the check

instead of the police? How does that maintain privacy? It doesn't matter which agency answers the phone, the system is going to have to be paid for. Just expand what we have now. Why not get an annual gun buying card if you're going to have your name connected to your drivers license. And once again, gun rights advocates happily went down the trail of the CCW which requires a ton of personal information. So why not something similar to have a gun buying card. It wouldn't even have to record what gun you buy.

[X_Digger]

37. NICS is an automated process..

.. so it should be one additional web request for state DMVs. If everyone has a number, and everyone gets checked, anonymous ownership preserved. Yes, we'd have to expand NICS greatly, but that's hardware more then anything.

[sandnsea]

45. The number is attached to a DL

which is attached to a name. I don't understand where the privacy comes in. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't.

I still think it hilarious that those screaming about privacy & gun lists are thrilled to give all of that info for a CCW permit.

Why not an NICS that issues a card and then deletes the info just like it does now. Isn't that still private?

[X_Digger]

46. If it were a separate card, but offered by default to everyone..

.. with an opt-out route, that'd work for me.

Personally, I'm not averse to showing someone my driver's license. Some here are apparently terrified of that, though.

[sandnsea]

49. That's what I mean

Not mandatory, an option for people who don't want to go through a check every time they buy a gun or to buy through private parties. I think it would be a lot less intrusive but would allow some of the people who are honest, but paranoid, another option to monitor their gun sales.

[gorfle]

62. The latest evolution.

The number is attached to a DL which is attached to a name. I don't understand where the privacy comes in. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't.

Some people, namely Iverglas, are concerned about handing over private information, such as the information contained on your standard driver's license, for things not related to driving.

Also, some people, again like Iverglas, object to having an FOID number printed on your driver's license, because even with an opt-out system, not having an FOID number would mean either you opted out, or you are ineligible to own firearms. There could be a social stigma associated with not having an FOID number on your drivers' license.

A proposed idea was to have the FOID number encrypted on your drivers' license in the magnetic stripe, and when you wanted to buy a firearm from a private individual you would go to your local police station, or Walmart, or wherever these FOID scanners would be stationed, you would have the prospective buyer swipe their ID, and the device would print out an encrypted receipt for the seller to keep as proof of who they sold the firearm to. The scanning device would keep no records of what it has scanned.

I still think it hilarious that those screaming about privacy & gun lists are thrilled to give all of that info for a CCW permit.

Most firearm owners are not CCW permit holders. Many firearm owners, such as myself, refuse to get a CCW permit out of privacy concerns.

Why not an NICS that issues a card and then deletes the info just like it does now. Isn't that still private?

If you believe our government, that tortures people and has pervasive domestic surveillance, doesn't keep permanent records of NICS queries, you are a lot more trusting than I am.

[sandnsea]

66. How do you buy a gun?

If you don't trust NICS to buy a new gun, then what do you do now?

And thank you for validating my point on CCW, I've never understood why gun advocates supported all the changes because they seemed to fly in the face of what they oppose otherwise.

[gorfle]

67. How I buy guns.

If you don't trust NICS to buy a new gun, then what do you do now?

While I don't trust the NICS system to maintain my privacy, today, since there is no tracing of private sales, I have "plausible deniability". That is, though the federal government knows I have bought new firearms in the past (I think I have bought 3 firearms through an FFL dealer), they don't know what has become of them since. I can easily say I sold them privately and this cannot be disputed.

And thank you for validating my point on CCW, I've never understood why gun advocates supported all the changes because they seemed to fly in the face of what they oppose otherwise.

I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow...which point about CCW did I validate? And which changes do gun advocates support that fly in the face of what they otherwise oppose?

[sandnsea]

69. On NICS

So if they used that system to issue you a card, and then cleared the info the way they do now, why wouldn't that be acceptable? Why would you think they would keep the info to issue an annual card, but not keep it to do checks who knows how many times a year? If it was voluntary, and you could ask someone for their card when you sold them a gun privately, wouldn't you feel better about knowing your guns were going to people who had passed a background check? You'd still have plausible deniability, they wouldn't know whether you had or hadn't sold your guns. The card wouldn't trace the sale, it would just let people like you have the opportunity for some sense of accountability when you sell your guns. Haven't you ever had a little lingering doubt about what happens to your guns after they're out of your hands?

[gorfle]

71. No problem at all.

So if they used that system to issue you a card, and then cleared the info the way they do now, why wouldn't that be acceptable? Why would you think they would keep the info to issue an annual card, but not keep it to do checks who knows how many times a year? If it was voluntary, and you could ask someone for their card when you sold them a gun privately, wouldn't you feel better about knowing your guns were going to people who had passed a background check? You'd still have plausible deniability, they wouldn't know whether you had or hadn't sold your guns. The card wouldn't trace the sale, it would just let people like you have the opportunity for some sense of accountability when you sell your guns. Haven't you ever had a little lingering doubt about what happens to your guns after they're out of your hands?

I don't have a problem with this at all. Perhaps you have missed my previous proposal:

I propose that it be required that whenever anyone applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID that person is automatically also run through the NICS system to see if they are eligible to own firearms. People will have the option to opt-out if they wish. If you are eligible, you will be assigned an FOID number that will be encoded into the magnetic stripe of your ID.

Whenever you sell a firearm to a private individual, law will require that you go to your local police station, or firearm dealer, or other location where ID scanners are available for public use. The buyer will scan his ID, and, if the FOID number is present, an encrypted receipt will be printed that contains the buyer's information. The seller will be required to keep this information for 10 years from the date of sale.

In this manner, all firearms can be traced from their initial FFL sale, to each subsequent owner (within a 10 year limit), by law enforcement acting on court orders to force previous owners to provide their proof of valid sale records. But, because this information is not computerized or otherwise in a central database, it insures anonymous firearm ownership by making it difficult, manual process to undertake firearm tracing.

It will all but eliminate straw purchases because no one would sell a firearm to someone without an FOID as such a sale is almost certainly for nefarioius purposes and thus highly likely to end up used in crime and then traced back to the last legitimate owner.

Thus the vast majority of firearm buyers will be people who have been screened through NICS.

Should someone with an FOID commit a crime or be found insane such that they are no longer eligible to own firearms, the local sheriff will be dispatched to their address to confiscate their ID and any firearms they find on the premises. Should the FOID holder conveniently "loose" their ID, since all such IDs expire after some time period the FOID would only be good for a limited amount of time after becoming ineligible. Alternatively, the scanning devices could be updated nightly with invalidated FOID numbers and any attempt to use a rescinded FOID card would be bounced.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Not trying to be a jerk here but is that really you, sandnsea.

[pipoman]

53. The privacy issue is simple IMHO

simply require FFLs to conduct private transfer NICS checks as a condition of licensure for a statutory fee, say $20, that will easily pay for the FFLs time...problem solved.

[Obamanaut]

5. Yes. nt

[FreakinDJ]

6. I am

[sendero]

7. I wonder where that happens...

.. I guess if you are an INDIVIDUAL selling a PERSONAL FIREARM you can do this. But if you are a dealer YOU HAVE TO RUN THE BACKGROUND CHECK whether you sell from your shop, or a gun show or the trunk of your car in a supermarket parking lot.

I think there is a lot of disinformation out there and I wonder if you are spreading it intentionally or if you just are clueless.

[Curtland1015]

19. First off, thanks for wondering if I'm underhanded or just stupid.

That goes a long way in having a thoughtful discussion, thanks for that.

Second, this is what I've read and why I thought this "non existent" loophole actually existed:

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

Is it not possible then to sell a gun (registered to you) without that check being required as long as you claim it wasn't a business transaction? It's my understanding that non-licensed gun sellers can easily (and legally) sell these guns at gun shows right next to the licensed ones.

That was my understanding of it. If I'm being "clueless" then I apologize. This is just the way I've read about it happening.

[sendero]

39. Thanks for confirming what I just said..

... yes, private sellers can sell without a background check. What would you propose? Have you ever been to a gun show? What do you think the ratio between FFL holders and private sellers at gun shows are?

I've never seen a private seller at a gun show, but this is one of the big talking points of the anti-gun crowd, who I consider to be mostly idiots.

If a criminal wants a firearm, it is easy to get one and gun shows are not likely to be the place it happens. And no matter what law you pass, the criminal is not real likely to give a rat's ass about it.

It really is that simple, sorry.

[rucky]

9. Safe storage

using fingerprint technology and laws like they have in Massachusetts would save alot of accidental deaths.

[sandnsea]

I am

I think a safety course and licensing is reasonable. I think knowing who owns what guns is reasonable. I think requiring guns to be locked is reasonable. I think most burglars will run when they hear the pump of a shotgun. I don't think anybody needs to have a damn gun in public, at schools, the mall, national parks, etc. I hate what the NRA has done to this country.

[sandnsea]

10. I am

I think a safety course and licensing is reasonable. I think knowing who owns what guns is reasonable. I think requiring guns to be locked is reasonable. I think most burglars will run when they hear the pump of a shotgun. I don't think anybody needs to have a damn gun in public, at schools, the mall, national parks, etc. I hate what the NRA has done to this country.

[gorfle]

64. I am

I think a safety course and licensing is reasonable.

I do not mind safety courses and licensing, provided it preserves anonymous firearm ownership.

I think knowing who owns what guns is reasonable.

If you accept that one of the fundamental reasons the founders wanted an armed citizenry was as a deterrent to federal tyranny, you can see why giving the federal government a list of such firearm owners is not a good idea.

I think requiring guns to be locked is reasonable.

I used to. But given how weak most safes are that cost less than a few thousand dollars, I don't see much benefit in locking a gun in a box inside a locked house. If you've got one of those Home Depot or Walmart $300 gun safes, they aren't much protection.

I think most burglars will run when they hear the pump of a shotgun.

I think this is an urban legend, but in any case, I think pump shotguns are one of the best home defense weapons.

I don't think anybody needs to have a damn gun in public, at schools, the mall, national parks, etc.

Most people don't need insurance. They have it because it gives them options in the rare event something goes wrong. CCW permit holders carry firearms for the same reason. As it turns out, CCW permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in the nation. They have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than your average non-CCW-carrying citizen. Whether they need to carry firearms or not is debatable. Whether CCW permit holders are safe and responsible is not.

I hate what the NRA has done to this country.

I love what the NRA has done to this country, namely, it has put all politicians on notice not to screw with my right to keep and bear arms. I write my annual membership check with a smile.

[Euromutt]

82. In principle, I'm amenable to such ideas, however...

The problem with a lot of restrictions on private firearms ownership that are, in and of themselves, perfectly reasonable, is that they have in the past been (ab)used in highy unreasonable ways. To use your first example, licensing of prospective firearm owners; this is an idea I support in theory, and I think a great many firearm owners would as well, if it weren't for the fact that the implementation of licensing schemes has generally been left at the discretion of executive agencies (usually local or state police) and all too often been implemented in an arbitrary and capricious manner by those agencies. For example, a police chief in Massachusetts might refuse firearms licenses to immigrants (even naturalized ones) from anywhere south of the Loire and Danube rivers; a Michigan state "handgun safety inspection" requirement can actually be intended to make sure, not that handgun is not unsafe, but that the owner is not black; the governments of the state of California and the city of New York confiscating firearms that their owners had registered, and were now determined by the executive to be in violation of new, highly ambiguous legislation.

The fact is that, to a very large extent, the worst enemies of "reasonable, common-sense" gun control measures are those who have supported such measures for the sake of exploiting them beyond their stated purpose. Firearms are exempt from consumer product safety laws because certain people have expressed their intent to exploit them to get handguns banned a "unsafe" (even if they functioned perfectly mechanically); firearms manufacturers are exempt from civil litigation because of concerted attempts to bankrupt them by attempting to hold them liable for criminal misuse of their products, to an extent in which nobody holds any other industry responsible, mainly because nobody's actively trying to drive those industries out of business. You don't have to like the NRA's national leadership--I don't, and I'm a member--but they get the support they do because even gun owners who would otherwise support "reasonable, common-sense" gun control measures to treat them like Trojan horses, a suspicion for which there is plenty of empirical support.

Take me. I don't particularly care about the Second Amendment; I support private citizens' right to own firearms, and carry them in public, first and foremost because the SCOTUS has ruled consistently that government has no obligation to protect individual citizens, and that being the case, I believe that same government cannot legitimately deny private citizens the means to defend themselves. I think it'd be wonderful if people didn't need "to have a damn gun in public, at schools, the mall, national parks, etc." but the fact of the matter is that mass shootings consistently occur in so-called "gun-free zones" likes schools and malls, and violent criminals are no respectors of National Parks either. In principle, I'd support a system of licensing prospective firearms owners if it weren't for the facts that I thoroughly expect such a system to lend itself to abuse, and that I know there are people itching to abuse it.

[Ikonoklast]

11. I am for informed and educated ownership of firearms.

I am also for enforcing the gun control laws we now have on the books.

I am also for mandatory twenty-year sentences for crimes done while possessing a firearm, even if it is the very first time a person commits a crime. Carrying a weapon signals intent to be willing to use it.

I find it hard to believe that we sometimes lock up people for selling marijuana longer than we do for committing a crime with a gun.

And unless the Constitution is amended, I support the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to private self-defense.

[Serenades]

13. Yes

People with brains can see both sides of an issue and come up with compromises. The problem is most people don't have brains or just want to force their will on someone else -- liberals and conservatives both fit this mold. Most people with brains can see a need to ban assault weapons. People with brains can see the use of a shot gun or rifle. No one wants to debate issues. Everyone just wants to be right. No one listens to shit.

[Tim01]

21. You do understant that an assault weapon is NOT an assault rifle right?

I have no desire to start a back and forth thing with you. I just want to make sure you understand that an assault weapon is NOT an automatic. It is a semi-auto like many hunting rifles. If you do already understand that, then I disagree with your point of view and that is fine.

[gorfle]

65. This is a lost argument.

You do understant that an assault weapon is NOT an assault rifle right?

This is a lost argument and in my opinion should not be the basis of pro-firearms debate.

First of all, in the public's mind if it looks like an M16 or an AK-47, it's an assault rifle. Period.

Second of all, these weapons are still civilian assault weapons! They are designed to give the citizenry weaponry on par with military small arms, so as to be able to replace, or at least counter, federal infantry armed with similar weapons. These weapons are for assault, and we should not be trying to hide from that fact. Rather, we should be embracing it.

All that really needs to be conveyed to the general public concerning assault rifles is that all rifles, let alone assault rifles, account for less than 3% of homicides annually - half as many as hands and feet do.

[X_Digger]

23. Ahh, but what is an assault weapon?

I'm not asking as a gotcha question, but to illustrate a point-

All guns derive from military models. The bolt action hunting rifles that used to be most popular were based on the mauser or springfield '03 design. Lever-action rifles are based on the spencer repeating rifle, used in the civil war, and carried by cavalry well into the 19th century. Pump action shotguns are still used aboard naval vessels today. Today's semi-automatic hunting rifles derive from the m1 garand and similar guns.

Just as yesterday's shooters derided new shooters for using those 'newfangled military guns' (based on m1 carbine, m1 garand, etc) instead of their bolt action rifles, today's older shooters deride new shooters for using 'newfangled military guns' (based on the ar-15, ak clones, etc) instead of their semi-automatic rifles.

There's nothing inherently dangerous about 'assault weapons' compared to older models (quite the opposite when it comes to stopping power- the ar-15 shoots a relatively anemic .223 round, the ak clone shoots a 7.62 x 39mm)- Granddad's 30-30 or .30-06 will fire a more powerful round farther than most of the 'assault weapons' on folks' minds.

[Deadric Damodred]

26. Considering the recent shooting with a Mossberg 500...

...and the mayor calling a common shotgun an "assault weapon", an "assault weapon" is whatever the fuck they want it to be. If they don't like the looks of it, they'll call it an "assault weapon", and the action of the weapon doesn't mean a damn thing to them. Dress up a lever-action cowboy rifle in some blackhawk gear, and they'll call it an "assault weapon". They are completely insane.

[X_Digger]

38. Well, it _is_ NJ..

I cut them some slack, they've been operating under some stupid restrictions concerning firearms (and gas pumps) for a while now.

[Tim01]

40. Awesome

[X_Digger]

43. LOL!! Don't show that to Carolyn McCarthy! n/t

[eqfan592]

50. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Look! It's black!!! It has that "look" too it! It's the worlds first lever action assault weapon!!

[Tim01]

59. You have to admit that is a bad-ass looking gun.

I need one of those for home defense.

[benEzra]

54. Ummm, "assault weapons" ARE rifles. The most popular civilian rifles in the country.

"Assault weapon" is ban-lobby speak for non-automatic, small- and intermediate-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling. They dominate competitive and recreational centerfire target shooting in this country, and more Americans lawfully own them than hunt, as I've pointed out elsewhere.

If you are thinking of military-style automatic weapons, those are already as tightly controlled in the USA as howitzers, tanks, bombs, and rocket launchers.

[MercutioATC]

14. ...and once again, there IS no "gun show loophole".

A gun show is nothing more than a gathering of people. A gun dealer at a gun show must use the same procedure that he uses at his store. A private seller can sell to anybody...just as they can if they're NOT at a gun show.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. I'm not for guns or gun control

I would say for the most part having guns (not for hunting, but for "protection") is a bad idea and fewer guns would make for a better society. That being said, gun control is like any prohibition of goods or services that there is a market for- you won't stop the gun, just create a lucrative black market run by criminals and create criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Money for crooks and a disrespect for the law by the people. Certain restrictions and registrations can help to keep track, but any thought of legislating guns out of this culture is a pipe dream.

[raimius]

76. Very respectable.

While I disagree with your "having guns for protection is a bad idea" view, I certainly agree with your assessment of prohibition.

I think having a gun for protection should be a personal choice. All or nothing laws do not seem to fit well in the real world. I do support educated gun owners, but I haven't found what I consider a good mandatory education system for ownership.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Qualified gun ownership.

Not everyone who can lock and load should have a weapon. I know a drunk with a violent hair-trigger (no pun intended) temper who has a yellow card and several rifles and pistols. Doesn't sound right to me.

And even those individuals who do qualify to be responsible "gun" owners should not necessarily have access to automatic weapons whose sole purpose is to annihilate, not sport, not recreation, but to decimate.

[spin]

27. Owning an automatic weapon is not easy or cheap...

Fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer.<54> The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of machine guns manufactured after it took effect.<55>

The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for private ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000,<56> costs a private citizen about $20,000.<57> This price difference dwarfs the $200 tax stamp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

[Deadric Damodred]

29. Automatic weapons are very hard...

...to get, because you have to have your local Sheriff sign off on it, you have to have the BATFE crawl up your ass with a microscope, you have to pay a $200 stamp tax, you have to find a automatic weapon made before 1986, and you have to have the thousands of dollars to afford the weapon and the ammo cost of shooting it. Of course we both know you weren't refering to automatic weapons, whether you know it or not, you were refering to semi-automatic rifles that have a military-style look.

[Pavulon]

58. Auto weapons and ccw require strict background checks and

eliminate many people by cost or requirements. Pretty much any non traffic violation will prevent you from having a ccw. DWI or any misdemeanor bounces you. For class 3 you have a federal check and then a sherif can deny you jest because he does not think you are suitable.

AUto weapons are restricted in how they are transported and used. There have been 2 crimes committed with legal registered auto weapons in 80 years. 1 was a police officer.

[Skittles]

18. yes, if you are not a gun nut

[Life Long Dem]

22. Take a look at the Obama administration.

It's never enough when Obama tries to compromise.

The line would always be pushed further.

[mzteris]

28. absolutely.

That's exactly how I feel about it. Though whenever I say ANYthing the "gun nuts" disagree with supposedly I'm "anti-gun". :eyes:

[Deadric Damodred]

30. That depends on if you are being honest about it.

Take the president of the Brady Campaign, Paul Helmke, for example. He claims to be pro-gun and just for "sensible gun control legislation". He's not being honest when he says that, because he claims the middle ground is to ban all semi-automatic rifles. That's not being honest about being pro-gun and that's definitely not a middle ground; that's flatout insanity.

[baldguy]

31. The only way to be.

Unfortunately, 99% of the pro-gun propaganda promoted by the NRA & the GOP discounts the idea.

[Deadric Damodred]

32. No. When one side tries to pretend that "common sense"...

...means banning all semi-automatic rifles, that tends to stop any discussion in it's tracks.

[baldguy]

33. Just like pretending that the aim of all gun control measures is to ban all guns.

Lying about what's true & what isn't tends to stifle discussion as well.

[Deadric Damodred]

34. Banning all semi-automatic firearms is basically...

...a complete ban on firearms. Don't take my word for it, look at what your god, the Brady Campaign, said:

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/05/paul-helmkes-alternate-universe-where.html

Here's the quote:

“Gun control is a topic that people don't like to talk about in any sort of rational way,” he said, noting some favor outlawing all private gun ownership, while others say there should be no gun laws. Helmke favors a middle ground. He would limit how many guns people can buy at one time, ban sales of semiautomatic rifles and increase law oversight of gun sales."


That's straight from the mouth of Paul Helmke, he wants to ban all semi-automatic rifles. That is not only completely unreasonable, it's fanatical.

[baldguy]

36. All guns are semiautomatic rifles.

And there's the propaganda.

[Deadric Damodred]

48. It doesn't matter if all guns are not semi-automatic...

...what matters is that banning all semi-automatic firearms would be banning a good 80% of firearms. That's not reasonable, and we will never allow it to happen. We will keep our semi-automatics whether you like or not.

[SteveM]

78. The ever-expanding definition of "semi-automatic" (nt)

[spin]

41. But for the first time he is being honest...

now perhaps the gun advocates on DU will no longer have to waste time telling those who oppose firearms but have little or no firearm knowledge, the simple difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-auto firearm that merely resembles a true military weapon.

Now we can just debate whether semi-auto rifles should be banned. much less confusing and far less frustrating.

Of course, the mainstream media will still continue to show fully auto assault rifles being fired when they talk about banning semi-auto hunting weapons.

True journalism is a lost art.

[benEzra]

57. Operation Rescue doesn't want to ban ALL abortions, either.

That doesn't make them centrist.

Banning the lawful and responsible ownership of the most popular civilian guns in America is hardly a "reasonable restriction." There is certainly common ground to be found on the issue, but that's not it.

[DrDan]

35. why not - sound pretty responsible to me

and why stop there - why not registration?

What is wrong with registration? We register cars. Some places register bikes, pet, etc. Sounds reasonable to me. This "government will take 'em away" malarky is just nuts.

[PavePusher]

42. Why don't we simply have to "register"...

...in order to utilize any of our Civil Rights? That could only make everyone safer, right?

Let's start with the First Amendment.

Everyone must register all their books, newspapers, magazines, etc. Any printed document. Approval on what documents you may register will come from a government agency with almost no oversight, that may make any new regulations it feels like, and that can staple extra pieces of paper to a magazine and call it "subversive material". Unregistered documents will be cause to have all your Civil Rights revoked, all your possesions seized, and you will be jailed until the government feels like releasing you. Your defense lawyers will not be given access to the evidence needed to defend you in court.

Any electronic documents must be registered individually, you must obtain permission from your local law enforcement before requesting permission from the federal agency. The tools to manipulate electronic documents will be heavily regulated and taxed. No more computers or printers will be allowed to be registered by private individuals after a certain date (say, 20 July). Prices will soar to 10-1000 times the normal free-market value. If you wish to move your computer to a new residence, you must first obtain permission from the regulatory agency. Agents of this office may enter your home at any time to inspect your computer without your consent.

Before you buy a book, you will have to undergo a background check. If you are on record as having violated a myriad of obscure or petty legal infractions (the list will be subject to the whims of many uninformed elected and appointed government officials), you will be prohibited from owning books. There will be a legal rule on how to get your rights back, but it will be ignored by the government. Some places will require that you have a "Book Owners Identification" card before even handling a book in a store or library.

In some localities, there will be a 3-30 day "waiting period" before you may actually take posession of the book. Small books will be heavily regulated in some states. You may have to obtain a government licence in order to carry small books in public, outside of your own property. Many governments will give only lip-service to these laws, denying permission unless one is politically connected or a very wealthy/famous celebrity. If you are seen carrying large books in public, panicked police will assault you and violate your Civil Rights, possibly even kill you. Owning multiple high-volume books will be illegal in some states.

The regulations on owning and carrying books will vary incredibly from state to state, and often from town to town within a state. No-one will ever be certain that they are fully in compliance with all local laws once they leave their area of residence. There will be laws based on the colors of books, how many pages they have, what print style or size they contain. It will often be illegal to loan a book to a friend or co-worker. Often, books will have to be secured in a locked case for transportation. Holding a book in your hand and looking at it in public could get you shot by law enforcement.




REGULATION.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

[iverglas]

51. I'll bet you can find us

a breakdown of those homicides by "blunt object" in any given year showing how many of the blunt objects in question were books ...

Not to mention all the books being used to facilitate robberies and intimidate family members!

[PavePusher]

61. As usual, you evade the point entirely.

With your footwork skills, you really should be a footballer.

The possibility exists for books to be misused, therefore they should be registered and regulated.

The possibility exists for guns to be misused, therefore they should be registered and regulated.

The possibility (and even actual occurance) of misuse is not a valid reason for restriction of any inanimate object, be it drugs, cars, guns, books, or pink taffeta. Misuse should be punished proportionaly to the harm caused. All else is distraction.

[iverglas]

70. how, I ask you?

The possibility exists for books to be misused, therefore they should be registered and regulated.

Maybe by using them as kindling?


The possibility exists for guns to be misused, therefore they should be registered and regulated.

Who said that??????????????

Hack. HACK.

[DrDan]

52. yes

[Euromutt]

80. I think a better analogy would be printing presses...

...and any other technology capable of duplicating information-bearing media for purposes of dissemination, e.g. stencil machines, photocopiers, desktop printers, disk drives capable of writing to media (from floppy disks to DVDs), and probably thumb drives for good measure as well. Not to mention radio and television transmitters, regardless of power output. Uncontrolled dissemination of information has, in the past, enabled bad things to happen, after all.

We'd probably better register radio and television receivers as well, lest people try to use them to listen to/watch the "wrong" kind of programs. Or such receivers could be restricted to receiving a limited number of pre-approved frequencies, i.e. those broadcasting "desirable" content. We'd also have to have stringent restrictions on sale and possession of components from which someone could build his own, unregulated radio receiver. After all, without that, people might be able to listen to the stuff they want to across state lines, or even international borders! And then they might find out that Oceania has not always been at war with Eurasia!

[iverglas]

81. have you considered coming up with something relevant/sensible?

Do tell us how many people have been killed by printing press in recent decades. Or robbed at hard drive-point. Or beaten about the head with a radio. Or shot with a laser printer!

I can't even begin to imagine what you thought your point was.

[oneshooter]

44. I am for guns AND gun control

Without arms we would be at the mercy of brigades and outcasts of the law. With out gun control we could not hit our targets, resulting in low scores. Very embarrassing!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[slackmaster]

47. There is no special provision in the law for gun shows

Any transaction that requires a background check requires a background check wherever and whenever it takes place.

[jody]

56. Others have pointed out you are wrong on guns-show sales. Do you wish to prohibit freedom of speech

just because someone makes a statement that is wrong?

SCOTUS said

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

Obviously natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights or re-existing rights under our Constitution including those enumerated in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments are not granted by the Constitution nor do they depend upon that instrument for their existence.

Our Constitution does obligate government to protect all enumerated rights as well as unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. That is a unique feature of our government because it protects a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

One should also acknowledge that our government with all it's failures, inadequacies, and injustices is the oldest surviving major government structure in the world.

Governments of the UK, France, Japan, China, et al postdate ours established by free individuals protective of each one's individual sovereignty and zealous in protecting their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights.

[Tim01]

60. You have been lied to. Gunshows are no different than anyplace else.

If anything it is fixing the wrong problem, if you even believe there is a problem.

You may want to get some better info before you form your opinion one way or the other.

[benEzra]

63. Most gun owners are. Heck, the NRA is (just listen to GOA rant about them sometimes).

But supporting background checks for purchase from a dealer, or non-arbitrary licensure for carry in public, or the existing tight controls on all automatic weapons does NOT mean that I/we support what the neoprohibitionists mean by the term.

One can support truly reasonable restrictions without supporting protruding handgrip bans, capacity limits, registration of the law-abiding, or other ban-lobby positions.

[spin]

68. I second that notion. (n/t)

[Endangered Specie]

73. All gun owners are for gun control...

good shooting grip
sight alignment
calm breathing
easy trigger squeeze & follow through

[Glory89fan]

74. Of course you can

I'm not though.

[iverglas]

75. are you going to start working on threads from 2008 soon?

I hope so. I'm sure there are some fun ones I missed, and you can save me the trouble of looking for them.


Your posting history so far is fascinating, I must say. I breathelessly await each new instalment.

[Mercracer]

77. No Loophole

The term Gunshow Loophole was contrived to deamonize the private transfer of firearms. There is no loophole. A licensed dealer must always do a NICS check whether or not it is at a gunshow. In many states private transfers do not have to go through a dealer. Criminals will never be effected by this as they will still purchase from each other without going through a dealer....
Gun control is contrary to our rights which are merely affirmed by the Second Amendment. It really is a slippery slope. Having a paper trail for all transactions is a precurser to registration. Registration allows easier confiscation. You only have to look at Chicago and California as 2 examples of this actually playing out.

[SteveM]

79. If the law is constitutional and addresses a real problem, yes...

So far, the gun-controllers/prohibitionists have sought prohibitions on the number of firearms purchased, the caliber purchased, the style purchased, the type purchased, the magazine capacity purchased, and beyond prohibition, any number of paperwork regulations, fees, waiting periods, buy-backs, etc. None of these have shown themselves to be effective in solving social problems like violent crime. And most are likely unconstitutional.

This is the result of a prohibitionist approach to social problems. The problem with this mumble school of progressivism is a reliance on some mythical middle ground, as if this hallowed real estate is inherently fair, moral, moderate and measurable in its effect. It isn't. It's just two-dimensional linear splitting of some difference and nothing more.