Shooting in Conn. School

[quote name='mykevermin']Before going there (sorry, halfway out the door this AM), I'll ask you the same thing - what, if any, policy changes would you like to see?

(also of note: I'm not concerned solely about mass shootings. I've made that *perfectly* clear on a number of occasions here. Follow along.)[/QUOTE]

I notice I never get an anwser out of you. You are for all of this gun reform, now prove your side. Don't ask me what I want.

[quote name='Clak']"Most crimes involving firearms are committed with non-assult type firearms"

"Oh, well then I guess we should look into banning those instead, thanks for the info."

"Nononononononononono"[/QUOTE]

Clak, and now you know why it is not so far fetched to claim you would like to ban firearms altogether.

So yes while I think handguns are the prime reason for most gun deaths in the US, I am not the one that is for banning particlar firearms. I am simply pointing out that while you guys are so scared of the scary black rifles, you are targeting the wrong gun. That doesn't mean i want to target any gun lol, I am just pointing out that you are all having a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy and the media ramming it down your throat. Just looking at your original posts in this topic shows the impact it had on your views regardless of facts or statistics.
 
[quote name='Clak']"Most crimes involving firearms are committed with non-assult type firearms"

"Oh, well then I guess we should look into banning those instead, thanks for the info."

"Nononononononononono"[/QUOTE]
That's basically what was posted on the front page of the New York Post. Ray Kelly pointing out the "real" enemy. Even though you think it's sarcasm, it's reality.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I notice I never get an anwser out of you. You are for all of this gun reform, now prove your side. Don't ask me what I want.[/QUOTE]

calm down, francis. i've been out all goddamned day. you'll get what you want.

forgive me for asking you if you actually have a *stance* on something. i'll refrain from making that mistake in the future.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']For starters:
Renewing the assault weapons ban. Much more interested in seeing magazine capacity shrink than particular firearms halt sale/production, though.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not in support of this. Police and military personnel will be exempt and criminals will still get the larger magazines on the secondary market.


[quote name='mykevermin']
Eliminate the "gun show" loophole - yes, even private sales should be documented. We do it with automobiles, yes?[/QUOTE]
Emphatic yes. I don't understand why anyone would fight this.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Provide states with funds for gun buyback programs. Seems absurd, but they do have an impact.[/QUOTE]
Why not? This actually worked in L.A. and Boston if my memory serves me correctly.

[quote name='mykevermin']
Allow all states to implement CCW licenses, allow reciprocity between states.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about this. You're saying you want to expand the amount of places people can walk around with their pieces?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Emphatic yes. I don't understand why anyone would fight this.[/QUOTE] The "gun show loophole" is a private sale issue renamed to make it appear like licensed gun dealers are selling guns without background checks. FFLs who deal at gun shows conduct their NICS checks accordingly. What happens though is people bring their one or two guns to a gun show to sell because that's where prospective buyers are. Most of the "gun show" transactions are 1 firearm sold privately to another private party. One person, one gun, one sale. Not FFL dealers selling guns to any and everybody.
 
So why shouldn't we require the documentation of all gun sales?

Despite my support of regulating the sale of firearms, I don't think the debate going on in Washington is going to solve anything. The stuff coming out of the NRA is complete insanity though.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So why shouldn't we require the documentation of all gun sales?
[/QUOTE]

I'm for this. I think every gun deal, even those initiated in private should end up being concluded through a licensed gun broker.

Part of me thinks that there are many people who don't want the government to know what they own because they would be considered an "asset". Guns are worth money, and there are people who have quite the valuable collection. The value in that collection could come back and bite them if they go through a divorce or leech of the government later in life.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So why shouldn't we require the documentation of all gun sales?

Despite my support of regulating the sale of firearms, I don't think the debate going on in Washington is going to solve anything. The stuff coming out of the NRA is complete insanity though.[/QUOTE]
The problem isn't documentation, it's how those documents will be used. New York State has effectively made it so it can track all legal gun purchases from seller to seller, creating a registration by sale process. If it isn't insidiously used towards backdoor registering, it's not a big deal but there is no good faith in gun control advocates and lobbyists, so there can be no good faith in a backdoor registry of guns.
 
The registry seems useful for solving crimes after the fact. You still have to figure out how to prevent them in the first place, if that is even possible.

You also have a ton of guns already in circulation in the underground economy. It's not like these guys are going to suddenly go participate in an expanded federal database or something. I think it's more of a feel-good law that either does not do anything or only makes things worse, like the sex offender registry.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The registry seems useful for solving crimes after the fact. You still have to figure out how to prevent them in the first place, if that is even possible.

You also have a ton of guns already in circulation in the underground economy. It's not like these guys are going to suddenly go participate in an expanded federal database or something. I think it's more of a feel-good law that either does not do anything or only makes things worse, like the sex offender registry.[/QUOTE]A registry of legally owned guns does nothing to affect criminals. Legal gun owners are not criminals sticking people up in the streets. What it does is make it easier for somebody like the Journal News to out names and addresses of gun owners along with whatever specific weapons they own. It also opens the doors towards confiscation, which is the progressive goal of gun control, disarmament.

Everything about the bills proposed on the graves of these children is atrocious. The Daily News has a gun control support mailer with the pictures of kids killed in Sandy hook. The Times is publishing Op-Eds calling for the end of the Constitution. We live in interesting times.
 
The gun registry can be used to hold people accountable for allowing criminals access to the guns in the first place. It's not like random guns are materializing into illegal owners' hands. Someone buys them legally, then either its lost or stolen due to negligence or they sell it through private ownership which isn't properly regulated.

The registry would allow law enforcement to trace the gun to who last had it legally and find out why it ended up in the hands of a criminal. Then they can see what needs to be done to further prevent that.

This irrational fear of confiscation is what's being used in the argument against almost any gun regulation, but if progressive leadership manages to make it law that your guns are to be taken away, why would the lack of a registry be the only thing that stops them? Congratulations, you're now breaking the law by owning something made illegal. If you want to fight that goal, do so when the fight arrives. Don't use that excuse on legitimate countermeasures to gun violence.
 
He's making an argument that we shouldn't do anything because if we do anything that's a slippery slope to gun confiscation.
 
[quote name='ID2006']The gun registry can be used to hold people accountable for allowing criminals access to the guns in the first place. It's not like random guns are materializing into illegal owners' hands. Someone buys them legally, then either its lost or stolen due to negligence or they sell it through private ownership which isn't properly regulated.

The registry would allow law enforcement to trace the gun to who last had it legally and find out why it ended up in the hands of a criminal. Then they can see what needs to be done to further prevent that.

This irrational fear of confiscation is what's being used in the argument against almost any gun regulation, but if progressive leadership manages to make it law that your guns are to be taken away, why would the lack of a registry be the only thing that stops them? Congratulations, you're now breaking the law by owning something made illegal. If you want to fight that goal, do so when the fight arrives. Don't use that excuse on legitimate countermeasures to gun violence.[/QUOTE]I can respect your opinion but it's just that, it's not fact. What you want to stop is straw purchasers, well, straw purchasers were used to release thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican cartels by the ATF. Fix the system in place of tracking down straw purchasers. A gun registry will not solve the problem, it will allow people to cite for certainty that there are so many guns in so many areas and they should all be taken away.

What you call irrational fear of confiscation is not an irrational fear. It has been proposed and is dangerously close to coming true, that is why it is used as a defense against it. Just because you do not believe the other side doesn't make them not right or lacking. That fight is happening right now, your ignorance of that fact doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
[quote name='IRHari']He's making an argument that we shouldn't do anything because if we do anything that's a slippery slope to gun confiscation.[/QUOTE] No. I'm saying gun registration in the moment, now, is directly related to confiscation. There are a multitude of things to do now, the priority should not be setting up law abiding citizens to be criminals down the line.
 
[quote name='Mad39er']I can respect your opinion but it's just that, it's not fact. What you want to stop is straw purchasers, well, straw purchasers were used to release thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican cartels by the ATF. Fix the system in place of tracking down straw purchasers. A gun registry will not solve the problem, it will allow people to cite for certainty that there are so many guns in so many areas and they should all be taken away.[/QUOTE]

What evidence do you have that suggests a gun registry won't help solve the problem?

[quote name='Mad39er']What you call irrational fear of confiscation is not an irrational fear. It has been proposed and is dangerously close to coming true, that is why it is used as a defense against it. Just because you do not believe the other side doesn't make them not right or lacking. That fight is happening right now, your ignorance of that fact doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
No. I'm saying gun registration in the moment, now, is directly related to confiscation. There are a multitude of things to do now, the priority should not be setting up law abiding citizens to be criminals down the line.[/QUOTE]


You ignored my point. The gun registry does not give them the power to confiscate. What you are arguing does not apply there. You can't soundly argue against one thing that would help just because it might very slowly lead to an entirely different issue that you're against. To put it another way — you've jumped the gun.
 
[quote name='ID2006']What evidence do you have that suggests a gun registry won't help solve the problem?[/QUOTE]I have the exact same evidence that you have that gun registry will help solve the problem. Your approach of "try and see if it works, if not it can be repealed" does not fly when history and legislators are showing that confiscation is right there. Arguing for registration when in fact the States that do have it, along with tougher gun control laws, have higher violence rates in their urban areas. New York City's handgun registration laws do not stop the over 400 murders a year or the illegal guns that aren't registered to criminals just as it doesn't work in Chicago.

You ignored my point. The gun registry does not give them the power to confiscate. What you are arguing does not apply there. You can't soundly argue against one thing that would help just because it might very slowly lead to an entirely different issue that you're against. To put it another way — you've jumped the gun.
Click to expand...
While you say I've missed or ignored your point, it's far from it. You've ignored the bills that were presented. This is reality and it does apply. I haven't jumped any guns, you haven't brought reality into your sights.
 
[quote name='ID2006']The gun registry can be used to hold people accountable for allowing criminals access to the guns in the first place. It's not like random guns are materializing into illegal owners' hands. Someone buys them legally, then either its lost or stolen due to negligence or they sell it through private ownership which isn't properly regulated.

The registry would allow law enforcement to trace the gun to who last had it legally and find out why it ended up in the hands of a criminal. Then they can see what needs to be done to further prevent that.

This irrational fear of confiscation is what's being used in the argument against almost any gun regulation, but if progressive leadership manages to make it law that your guns are to be taken away, why would the lack of a registry be the only thing that stops them? Congratulations, you're now breaking the law by owning something made illegal. If you want to fight that goal, do so when the fight arrives. Don't use that excuse on legitimate countermeasures to gun violence.[/QUOTE]

Explain how this is a legitimate countermeasure to gun violence? It is solely reactive to continued gun violence, not preventative.

Again, I will say that the only real gun control is gun control.

Maybe you don't honestly realize this yet, or maybe you are like certain politicians trying to inch there way to it, but each measure you are attempting to take will only prove through its ineffectiveness that there is only one measure to take. Care to guess what it is?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Explain how this is a legitimate countermeasure to gun violence? It is solely reactive to continued gun violence, not preventative.[/QUOTE]

It's a countermeasure in that it should ultimately cause fewer criminals to acquire guns. A person responsible for straw purchasing will be held responsible and prevented from further instances. It should also make it less easy for them to do such a thing. A harsher penalty will make them think twice. Is it worth it to commit an illegal practice if maybe you lose your ability to buy guns legally?

Reactive measures can prevent future instances. We react to disease outbreaks or fires to reduce the spread of them and prevent them from becoming even greater, for example.

I'm not looking at this in a simplistic manner or the short term, but I don't intend to write an entire treatise on it, either.

[quote name='Knoell'] Maybe you don't honestly realize this yet, or maybe you are like certain politicians trying to inch there way to it, but each measure you are attempting to take will only prove through its ineffectiveness that there is only one measure to take. Care to guess what it is?[/QUOTE]

I think a little bit of inconvenience is okay for a gun you'll probably own for years. Buy your gun, maybe take a required training class, and use it legally as you see fit. If you want to trade or sell it, great. Just go through the appropriate background check system / exchange process, and you're done.

As for that one measure to take, it's not what you think it is. Banning guns entirely will work at this point as well as banning drugs or alcohol has in the past and present. There will always be smuggling, contraband, etc., especially with potential new problems like 3d printing, which might make possible the manufacturing of disposable guns.

I'm sure there's a combination of training, responsibility, regulation, and suitable repercussions involved that will reduce the crime. There's no need to ban them all (although it would probably reduce suicides.)
 
[quote name='ID2006']I'm not looking at this in a simplistic manner or the short term, but I don't intend to write an entire treatise on it, either.[/QUOTE]
If you don't intend to write a treatise on it, you'd probably benefit by reading the ones by people who have. David Kopel in particular has a wealth of information on the subject. Especially in regards to registration. They're highly good reads and they're based in real life, not conjecture. His latest testimony is from 1/30/13 and available right on the front page.

http://davekopel.org/
 
[quote name='Mad39er']If you don't intend to write a treatise on it, you'd probably benefit by reading the ones by people who have. David Kopel in particular has a wealth of information on the subject. Especially in regards to registration. They're highly good reads and they're based in real life, not conjecture. His latest testimony is from 1/30/13 and available right on the front page.

http://davekopel.org/[/QUOTE]

I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.

Anyway, comparing us to other democratic nations is incongruent. No other nation had a constitution like ours that embedded gun rights into its foundation. The US was born after the invention of guns and is in the unique position to protect the right to own (and as you probably know, the Supreme Court already has set precedent for this) while still allowing a healthy amount of regulation that allows people to peacefully own guns for whatever legal reasons they wish.

I'm not schilling any particular lawmaker's plans. I'm just saying that an appropriate law can be made that works with gun registration. I'd rather have none than a distorted or corrupted law, on the other hand.
 
[quote name='ID2006']I read most of it, including the part about registration. His problem with registration in that article has nothing to do with its effectiveness. He's only concerned with it leading to confiscation. He actually gives a suggested solution for Congress to prohibit state and local registries. I would say that the same could be done for confiscation. Prohibit confiscation, but allow the registry. There you go. As long as the federal government keeps the states in check, you won't have confiscation.[/QUOTE]I admire your ability to think the Federal Government has the duty to keep the States in check but the reality is that the States have a duty to keep the Federal Government in check.

For registration to "work", it has to be done on a Federal level, across the country. New York State has acknowledged that and said that 80% of the guns used in crimes in New York did not come from New York, that registration has no effect on gun crime in New York. New York's registration policies require the rest of the US to fall into compliance as stated by countless Democrats when they explained their votes. This is the slippery slope that is made fun of, because the perception is that it isn't real. It's very real, one State starts something and uses momentum to push the next ones into action. Massachusets and Maryland are next. They're proposing registration and confiscation.

Registration is the flawed theory that by keeping track of all the guns you can keep them out of bad hands. If you institute kiosks for NICS checks and require them for private sales you'll do a lot better of a job. NICS accessibility has to be expanded because registration does not work in it's proposed form, it does not work on the State level. It cannot work if all States do not agree to it and they don't, at all. NICS checks work, they're not less "universal" than the proposed universal background checks, they use the exact same system.

What makes universal background checks universal? The requirement of gun registration. But that has nothing to do with a background check now does it? Except when you perform them on law abiding citizens, it tells you how many guns they have in their possession. Does not affect crime when applied to a law abiding citizen, because criminals are forced out of the system and will not register or submit to background checks. What you'll catch is the stupid ones who do it.

California instituted a process requiring a thumb print for ammunition purchases. They've managed to remove illegal guns from the street without requiring background checks based on the purchases of ammunition by people who should not be making them. While I don't agree a thumb print is ideal, it's less invasive and allows the criminals to incriminate themselves more easily and readily than the prospect of a background check and/or registration. Its something that actually works but nobody from California is pushing the thumb print system, they're pushing registration and outright banning of classes of guns.
 
Of course mental illness and guns don't mix...

Maybe you can explain why a Navy Seal brought a equally mentally unstable solider to a gun range ?only to be shot and killed by the unstable solider
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']
Maybe you can explain why a Navy Seal brought a equally mentally unstable solider to a gun range ?only to be shot and killed by the unstable solider[/QUOTE]
No idea. I'm not sure what they were aware of regarding Ruth.

-And "equally mentally unstable?" Are you saying Kyle and the other individual at the range were unstable?
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Indeed, mental illness and guns don't mix. Is any side disputing this?[/QUOTE]

One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.
 
Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.[/QUOTE]

I see flip flops within the NRA on expanding background checks and the overwhelming support within members of the gun owning public as well (running what ~80% support depending on sources) on that same subject.
Its implementation is where controversy may arise: Is the check going to be a simple background check on individuals or are we going to include serial numbers and types of weapons purchased, thus back-dooring registration and tracking (thereby explaining the rift between NRA board-members and the PAC's party-line)?


It's the rest of your "legitimate policy" that many in the group of potentially affected legal gunowners take issue with, as it is driven with a rush to capitalize on emotion and the waning shift in public sentiment driven by conflation, general lack of knowledge regarding, and out and out lies vis–à–vis "automatics/" assault rifles/"assault weapons," magazine capacities, and aesthetics.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.[/QUOTE]:roll:

Thanks for this.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I see flip flops within the NRA on expanding background checks and the overwhelming support within members of the gun owning public as well (running what ~80% support depending on sources) on that same subject.[/quote]

The public face of the NRA has done anything but "flip-flop" on the issue.

God, I hate that phrase. Anyway.

Its implementation is where controversy may arise: Is the check going to be a simple background check on individuals or are we going to include serial numbers and types of weapons purchased, thus back-dooring registration and tracking (thereby explaining the rift between NRA board-members and the PAC's party-line)?
Click to expand...

Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Whoever Eddie Ray Routh is, he's more of a hero than Chris Kyle ever was. At least he took out a mass murderer instead of sniping women and children, writing a book about it, going on national TV media to brag about it, and profiting from it.[/QUOTE]

Wow, Chris Kyle was more of a hero than you, and the extent of your family will probably ever be. Keep being an obscure jackass, because that will be your significance.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/rough-creek-189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?[/QUOTE]

You again?

Was it you or one of your cronies that stated how you don't see why people can't just shoot guns at ranges and stuff? Should they have to hold the guns for us just in case now too? Maybe only blanks at the ranges, just in case?

[quote name='mykevermin']One side is disputing legitimate policy. Don't be obtuse.[/QUOTE]


I see you still haven't gotten around to defending your "ideas" huh? Taking a few pointers from the media on shocking us, and then aweing us with your "ideas" with no factual backup?

[quote name='mykevermin']

Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?[/QUOTE]

Because of what it will eventually and inevitably lead to for one. It will be very ineffective in stopping the violence, and won't a list of all gun owners be handy if they decide confiscation is the only course of action that will stop the violence?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']
Is any of this, to you, a violation of the second amendment? If yes, please explain. If no, why are some against it?[/QUOTE]

Again: The role of "registration" preceding confiscation is well documented in western societies, if it is something that must be conceded to prevent knee-jerk and unfounded prohibitions . . .so be it, but I'd still oppose it on those grounds.

Is it constitutional? Should one be afforded privacy in pursuing and applying a constitutional right? I've been enraged that anonymous free speech has being targeted on the internet. I think women choosing an abortion shouldn't be forced to have the state make their information public. It's certainly open to interpretation, and I'd be interested, but leery, to watch the courts test this.

As others have repeatedly stated in this thread, myself included, much of it has to do with the "legitimate sporting use" fallacy in regards to the 2A. Before the myrmidons respond with "muskets, polite society, this is the 21st century and other 'pablum'" most advocates follow the reasonably limited "arms in kind" prescription and interpretation (Scalia's vague dictem not withstanding).

The majority of gun owners willfully accept, endorse and already concede strict prohibitions on: AoW, NFA arms, suppressors, automatic weapons (read: what are by definition assault-rifles, via a de facto ban and the reasonable high hurdles of legal ownership for those ones that remain), and onerous constraints on the aforementioned and on all "destructive devices."

Yet despite all the above, opponents to this day still mindlessly scream "obstinance" and "you're a totalitarian who opposes all curbs and 'reasonable restrictions'" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Those with significant experience and versed in arms become enraged at banning certain semi-automatics because of aesthetics (many of which actually make arms safer and simply more ergonomic) and prohibitions on mag capacities- it is just where a number of advocates draw the line, lest one accept the 2A doesn't really mean anything.

I know that in your choosen vocation you likely know the numbers, and are well aware that ~99% of gun realted crimes are not committed with what the opponent seek to prohibit/ban. You yourself have reflected on the poor impact (poor at best, according to flawed and debatable research) of the last AWB.

Sadly, the public at large has no political will to go after or otherwise constrain "uncle Willy's shotgun" and low capacity handguns. Despite the fact those arms constitute what is many times more significant role in homicides by firearms (but I assume you already know this from your previous statements). So the opposition uses panic to nip around the edges of the 2A and impact non-hunters and/or non "sporting firearms" (despite 3 gun sports being the most popular and fastest growing segment of target shooting) and instead goes after arms & that class of gun which it finds morally repugnant (since the numbers don't justify the rationale behind the AWB) and an uninformed and emotional public will give-up on in the ephemeral panic.
 
I can't wait until Obama is elected Dictator Fo Lyfe Yo! in 2014 so he can take away everybody's guns...maybe except black people because Hitler. I'm going to put that on my Shit That Won't Ever Happen List along with the government confiscating everyone's gun because of some semantic bullshit about a "backdoor" registry and slippery slope.

It's fairly obvious that gun fetishists have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence when their entire defense is a nebulous concept of "tyranny" and superficial understanding of legislation as if gun control is about stopping every single event. Hell, if we can't cure cancer, then why the fuck fight it or even treat it, right? It's goddamn looney tunes. There isn't even any interest in learning about what causes those crimes because they're treated like they exist in a vacuum.

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? Jerking each other off about freedom fries, respecting the office of the president, and calling anyone that didn't want an all out war a traitor and/or treasonous. It's as if FFL logs are just around to kill trees and the Feds/ATF/Illuminati to put software on your computer to keep tabs on you. Does the saying, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" ring a bell? Well now you're going to have to eat it when shit you don't like gets served up. Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I can't wait until Obama is elected Dictator Fo Lyfe Yo! in 2014 so he can take away everybody's guns...maybe except black people because Hitler. I'm going to put that on my Shit That Won't Ever Happen List along with the government confiscating everyone's gun because of some semantic bullshit about a "backdoor" registry and slippery slope.

It's fairly obvious that gun fetishists have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence when their entire defense is a nebulous concept of "tyranny" and superficial understanding of legislation as if gun control is about stopping every single event. Hell, if we can't cure cancer, then why the fuck fight it or even treat it, right? It's goddamn looney tunes. There isn't even any interest in learning about what causes those crimes because they're treated like they exist in a vacuum.

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? Jerking each other off about freedom fries, respecting the office of the president, and calling anyone that didn't want an all out war a traitor and/or treasonous. It's as if FFL logs are just around to kill trees and the Feds/ATF/Illuminati to put software on your computer to keep tabs on you. Does the saying, "If you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" ring a bell? Well now you're going to have to eat it when shit you don't like gets served up. Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.[/QUOTE]

Shocker, the normal attack on the opposing side without mentioning why any of your ideas are good ones. Surprise!

So I am assuming you believe the "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" situation now then? You pointing out people's hypocrisy is pointing out your own...dumb dumb.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Again: The role of "registration" preceding confiscation is well documented in western societies, if it is something that must be conceded to prevent knee-jerk and unfounded prohibitions . . .so be it, but I'd still oppose it on those grounds.

Is it constitutional? Should one be afforded privacy in pursuing and applying a constitutional right? I've been enraged that anonymous free speech has being targeted on the internet. I think women choosing an abortion shouldn't be forced to have the state make their information public. It's certainly open to interpretation, and I'd be interested, but leery, to watch the courts test this.

As others have repeatedly stated in this thread, myself included, much of it has to do with the "legitimate sporting use" fallacy in regards to the 2A. Before the myrmidons respond with "muskets, polite society, this is the 21st century and other 'pablum'" most advocates follow the reasonably limited "arms in kind" prescription and interpretation (Scalia's vague dictem not withstanding).

The majority of gun owners willfully accept, endorse and already concede strict prohibitions on: AoW, NFA arms, suppressors, automatic weapons (read: what are by definition assault-rifles, via a de facto ban and the reasonable high hurdles of legal ownership for those ones that remain), and onerous constraints on the aforementioned and on all "destructive devices."

Yet despite all the above, opponents to this day still mindlessly scream "obstinance" and "you're a totalitarian who opposes all curbs and 'reasonable restrictions'" when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Those with significant experience and versed in arms become enraged at banning certain semi-automatics because of aesthetics (many of which actually make arms safer and simply more ergonomic) and prohibitions on mag capacities- it is just where a number of advocates draw the line, lest one accept the 2A doesn't really mean anything.

I know that in your choosen vocation you likely know the numbers, and are well aware that ~99% of gun realted crimes are not committed with what the opponent seek to prohibit/ban. You yourself have reflected on the poor impact (poor at best, according to flawed and debatable research) of the last AWB.

Sadly, the public at large has no political will to go after or otherwise constrain "uncle Willy's shotgun" and low capacity handguns. Despite the fact those arms constitute what is many times more significant role in homicides by firearms (but I assume you already know this from your previous statements). So the opposition uses panic to nip around the edges of the 2A and impact non-hunters and/or non "sporting firearms" (despite 3 gun sports being the most popular and fastest growing segment of target shooting) and instead goes after arms & that class of gun which it finds morally repugnant (since the numbers don't justify the rationale behind the AWB) and an uninformed and emotional public will give-up on in the ephemeral panic.[/QUOTE]

So, then, it's constitutional.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Shocker, the normal attack on the opposing side without mentioning why any of your ideas are good ones. Surprise![/quote]
I'm still waiting for you to do that search. It takes less time than it took you to type up that sentence.

So I am assuming you believe the "if you didn't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to be afraid of" situation now then? You pointing out people's hypocrisy is pointing out your own...dumb dumb.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Nothing gets by you!:rofl:
 
[quote name='dohdough']blah, blah, blah Hitler. never happen.

Blash, blah, race-bait. Blah, blah, fetishists . . . . have absolutely no interest in providing ideas for stemming gun violence (despite that fact that the proposed legislation has no demonstrable evidence that it would impact the numbers anything other than nearly immeasurably despite a disparate impact on many).

Thanks to the PATRIOT Act, we already have a "backdoor" registry of firearms and it would only take a slight push to consolidate it into a a nationwide database because of "national security." And what were the gun nuts and conservatives doing back then? (really, tracks individual ownership you say?)

Just desserts and all that...

If the government was serious about confiscating guns, a vast majority of freepers would've been disarmed by now as all mechanisms to articulate "just cause" have been legally established and there'd be no way to keep it quiet.[/QUOTE] Fixed.

I love you DohDough you're wonderfully predictable and consistent.
:lol:

An emotional catalyst, individual registration and a level of political will (even if fleeting) is still needed.

Most 2A activist I know have really raged and lobbied against the NDAA and Patriot Acts and haven't been jerking themselves as you so eloquently put it.

[quote name='mykevermin']So, then, it's constitutional.[/QUOTE]

Is it?
 
If you have to hem and haw about it the way you have, it's pretty evident that you haven't a leg to stand on in terms of claiming it is unconstitutional. you'd have some kind of legal precedent to fall back on, or more likely, some overwraught libertarian philosophy as to why it is. you presented neither; instead, you go on and on about, how since gun owners aren't fighting for unrestricted access to nuclear weapons, their opposition to current issues up for debate is somehow "reasonable."

The web you wove is far removed from the issue of constitutionality. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, indeed.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']Fixed.

I love you DohDough you're wonderfully predictable and consistent.
:lol:

An emotional catalyst, individual registration and a level of political will (even if fleeting) is still needed.

Most 2A activist I know have really raged and lobbied against the NDAA and Patriot Acts and haven't been jerking themselves as you so eloquently put it.[/QUOTE]
Are you deathly allergic to context? I find it hard to believe that this is the first time you've encountered the subject matter of my satire...or maybe ironic usage of freeper tropes is just something you're offended by.

But seriously, what the hell kind of information do you think is on FFL paperwork anyways? Stick figures of someone shooting a gun?
 
[quote name='dohdough']
But seriously, what the hell kind of information do you think is on FFL paperwork anyways? Stick figures of someone shooting a gun?[/QUOTE]

Allergic to context? Seriously? It's exactly and specifically in regards to that context that I harbor concern RE: back-ground check. (We know how opponents want a chain-of-custody, chain-of-custody, chain-of-custody.)

Again, was my statement clearly not just in relation to and clearly about background checks on private sales (in the context of them being not being currently traced via FFL transfer or available for a 3312.1) but in exactly how that would be executed?

How are those private sales tracked now? You just said they were & the Gov't had all the prerequisite knowledge and that mechanisms were in place for a total confiscation.

Now do you believe the new form, system or even app for a p2p sale under this amorphous and speculative legislation would be identical to an FFL 4473 or other transfer paper work? It need not do so if it intends to accomplish the single goal of a background check request. A form minus serial number and weapon make/type would work would it not? (And still allow for a degree of privacy).

This is the impetus for what seems to be the disparity in the community.

Same exact set of rules for p2p/private sales as a FFL licensee? Doubt that will happen, I don't see Uncle Willy holding an FFL log book and doing identical paperwork to sell his nephew a shotgun for a $1.

What's the goal and which do you think would have a better chance of passage?

I know many advocates would support the implementation background check, but possibly coupled with that form is the hypothetical all encompassing mechanism that you mock, which they readily fear and have watched in a single generation used to disarm others.

Aside: We love your tropes, ad-hominems, cliches, and catch phrases DD- you wouldn't be you without them. Always elevating the debate. :)

I do imagine you have a macro to autofill the word fetish. :bouncy:
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I presented neither? Strange.

So, in your reductive assessment, you posit the 2A amendment actually doesn't mean anything?[/QUOTE]

I said nothing of the sort. I asked if you thought background checks or registrations were violations of the 2nd Amendment. You stuttered; ergo I'm detecting that you don't have a basis to argue on.

I think neither can be remotely thought of as violating the second amendment. No reasonable person would think so.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I said nothing of the sort. I asked if you thought background checks or registrations were violations of the 2nd Amendment. You stuttered; ergo I'm detecting that you don't have a basis to argue on.

I think neither can be remotely thought of as violating the second amendment. No reasonable person would think so.[/QUOTE]
Sorry from your context, I thought you were talking about an AWB in terms of constitutionality. I thought I was clear in the ambiguities and constitutional questions regarding registration.
Again, I would reiterate exactly what I said in that post: Do you have a right to privacy when you are invoking/pursuing another constitutional right?
Was that obtuse?

Even more simply put: Because you, I or anyone else wants to exercise our 2nd amendment rights must we forgo our 4th?
 
Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.[/QUOTE]


Still working on those facts besides emotional "we have to try something, won't someone think of the children!" to back up your legislation? You should be one to talk on answering people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Every goddamned Libertarian thinks of themselves as a Wordsmith. An Oedipus complex for dear mother Ayn, perhaps?

Are background checks and/or registries constitutional or not? It's not a complex fucking question, I don't need a wanking attempt at literary genius. I'd like a "yes," a "no," or a "maybe" with some kind of elaboration in any case. You ain't Socrates Johnson, friend, so answer in terms of declarative statements.

Weren't you..oh, never mind, that was temporaryscars. Yep, nevermind.[/QUOTE]

So asking a question instead of being condescending or acting authoritative makes me what?

I'm not trying to hold Socratic class here, good Dr.

I'm asking an earnest unanswered question? A private person 2 person firearm sale is not transpiring via a business, and it's not legally occurring across state lines without an FFL intermediary? But you already know this.

Do you hold, as in my hypotheticals, that we forsake our forth amendment rights when we invoke or exercise another or not? Let's hope not.

So I posit most proponents support a back-ground check but as far as the constitutionality goes I plead, probably not but IDK. Still, one has to demonstrate harm to bring a challenge to it should it pass. Unless it is a clear violation, prima facia.

I'd argue that involuntary/mandated registration of a private party gun sale (in comparative terms of a protected right, unlike buying/selling a car) would be more so of a privacy breech than just a back-ground check alone- but the constitutionality would be untested? Am I wrong?

In the end, the arbiters of this won't likely be motivated by the constitutionality will they?

As for being a wordsmith, sorry if you have to read more and think more about what I am saying than what I normally read in this sub-forum.

I'm certainly guilty of skimming myself, no harm done unless someone refuses to admit it and then acts offended and lashes out over it.
__________________


Perhaps I can put something more in your wheelhouse since you don't want to read and address my thoughts.

What are your thoughts on Kleck and does he have anything new that's not behind an academic/pay-wall?

Most of what I find from him seems dated, but still relevant in relation to the AWB. I only ask as 1. He's local to me now and 2. Trying to decide on other stuff and found him through Heller and his influence there.

_________________

Or you could just call me a NAZI or imply I might be a racist . . . again. Finished skimming the Trayvon thread for any racist remarks on my behalf yet?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/rough-creek-189536271.html

how many 'anecdotes' before some of you accept that something is a patterned problem?[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you brought this up. Of course there is a patterned problem. We have more violent people committing more violent acts.

However, there were more guns per capita 50 years ago. There were far more guns per capita 100 years ago. Yet kids killing kids with guns was nearly unheard of until about the early 90's and it's become more and more frequent.

It's also interesting to note that gun ownership density is far greater outside the big cities, yet the big cities are where all these crimes happen.

So, if the mere existence or numbers of guns is not the problem, then what is? I'm not sure yet, but I sure wish our politicians were interested in finding out. Sadly, that probably won't happen as it might shed light on their own failed social policy at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top