The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > SHH Community > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-10-2013, 05:22 PM   #101
Kable24
Member of the NRA
 
Kable24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
And people still murder people. People still steal things. Companies still commit fraud. Just because a law is broken doesn't mean it doesn't have damn good reason to be a law. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced.

I agree 100%. laws need to be enforced. So how does restricting what gun owners can buy or the size of a magazine stop criminals?

You have to go after the person and not the item used to commit the crime.

__________________
I'm done here.


Kable24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:30 PM   #102
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
 
redhawk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Kemet
Posts: 13,658
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Death resulting from cars are a result of a failure to use a car properly.

Deaths resulting from guns are the result of the actual purpose of weapons.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
On my planet, the S stands for Sears.
redhawk23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:31 PM   #103
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
 
redhawk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Kemet
Posts: 13,658
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable24 View Post
I agree 100%. laws need to be enforced. So how does restricting what gun owners can buy or the size of a magazine stop criminals?

You have to go after the person and not the item used to commit the crime.
But you're arguing against the laws being in place to begin with. Anti-trust laws define and limit the kind of contracts that can be entered into in order to stop transactions that contribute to social ills. Does this punish people who operate their business openly and in good faith?

Does it stop every single backroom deal that could possibly take place? No.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
On my planet, the S stands for Sears.
redhawk23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:35 PM   #104
wiegeabo
Omniposcient
 
wiegeabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Look behind you...
Posts: 36,281
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
Okay, lets do. But which ones should be illegal? What should be the legal channels in which to obtain a weapon?

That's pretty much what this debate is.
It's not what type of gun should be illegal.


It's going after the guns that are not legally owned. That are brought into this country (or made here) and sold on the black market.

It's also going after the guns that are used in crimes, legally owned or not.

Going after illegal guns doesn't just mean going after guns that are banned, and definitely doesn't mean declaring more types of guns banned. It means going after the criminals and their guns. And the criminals that supply those guns.

__________________
I don't care about your deathmatches. Don't even ask. I'll just report it as spam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
90% of people are in love with wiegeabo. The other 10% are liars.
wiegeabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:39 PM   #105
wiegeabo
Omniposcient
 
wiegeabo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Look behind you...
Posts: 36,281
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
Death resulting from cars are a result of a failure to use a car properly.

Deaths resulting from guns are the result of the actual purpose of weapons.
I disagree.

The purpose of a gun is hunting, recreational shooting, and defending oneself/family/property.


Ok, so, I guess in the last case it is true. A death from self-defense would fall under the actual purpose of the weapon.

But anytime a gun is used to harm another outside of that, it is not the intended purpose of the weapon. It's the abuse of the weapon.

__________________
I don't care about your deathmatches. Don't even ask. I'll just report it as spam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Lantern View Post
90% of people are in love with wiegeabo. The other 10% are liars.
wiegeabo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:45 PM   #106
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
 
redhawk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Kemet
Posts: 13,658
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

I'm just saying that running someone over with a car is a very different thing than shooting them with a gun.

The former is a fairly novel way of killing someone. Hell you can kill someone with a teddy bear if you press hard enough.

Guns are purpose built tools.

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
On my planet, the S stands for Sears.
redhawk23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:47 PM   #107
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
 
redhawk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Kemet
Posts: 13,658
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiegeabo View Post
It's not what type of gun should be illegal.


It's going after the guns that are not legally owned. That are brought into this country (or made here) and sold on the black market.

It's also going after the guns that are used in crimes, legally owned or not.

Going after illegal guns doesn't just mean going after guns that are banned, and definitely doesn't mean declaring more types of guns banned. It means going after the criminals and their guns. And the criminals that supply those guns.
So potentially all guns?

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
On my planet, the S stands for Sears.
redhawk23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:48 PM   #108
Kable24
Member of the NRA
 
Kable24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
But you're arguing against the laws being in place to begin with. Anti-trust laws define and limit the kind of contracts that can be entered into in order to stop transactions that contribute to social ills. Does this punish people who operate their business openly and in good faith?

Does it stop every single backroom deal that could possibly take place? No.
I have no problems with the current set of laws for purchasing guns. Well, I wish the Hughes Amendment would be repealed. I just feel that adding more isn't going to change anything.

__________________
I'm done here.


Kable24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:49 PM   #109
KalMart
239-Bean Irish Chili
 
KalMart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,306
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Again, newer gun laws need to be packaged with better education, law enforcement, and perhaps even entertainment policies instead of just the gun laws. And if they want to cut down on illegal guns, then they need to find a way of searching out and finding those guns before they're used in crimes, as well as making punishment for illegal gun possession even harsher.

The problem with these kinds of gun laws are not only that they don't achieve anything, but it still becomes a scoring point in the field of politics....a point that the supporter waves as a banner and that the opposition will want to get back, when it didn't really do anything in and of itself. By that point, it's no longer about saving lives for either side, but more about saving face. Both sides need to collaborate on addressing crime as whole and doing their part to help it. Anti gunners first need to understand that restricting legal purchase and ownership is ineffective, and pro gunners need to understand that they need to actively help this issue.

__________________
KalMart's Vids on YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Plus, is the infatuation that teenage girls have with pseudo-vampires any less sad than your infatuation with men in spandex and Heath Ledger? Its probably more justifiable for them. :)
KalMart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 05:51 PM   #110
redhawk23
Wrestlin'
 
redhawk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: New Kemet
Posts: 13,658
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

So you guys agree that we should "go after" and restrict the access of guns to criminals and criminal operations.

How exactly does one go about doing so without the legal power to do so?

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by James View Post
On my planet, the S stands for Sears.
redhawk23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 06:05 PM   #111
KalMart
239-Bean Irish Chili
 
KalMart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,306
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk23 View Post
So you guys agree that we should "go after" and restrict the access of guns to criminals and criminal operations.

How exactly does one go about doing so without the legal power to do so?
That's obviously a tough call. Is there a way of 'sniffing them out' in the streets? Can we legalize mandatory house searches with detectors for guns, and penalize harshly for illegal possession? Can we establish a 40 yr. sentence for first offense on illegal possession, and death penalty/life sent. for a second? Can we put the right to privacy on hold for those times a 'gun scan' is taking place?

If possible, it would do a lot more than restricting legal purchase and ownership. I think penalization for possession is a place to start. Maybe along the way we'll develop new forms of detection.....a 'gun radar' or the like.

Now how about that funding?

__________________
KalMart's Vids on YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Plus, is the infatuation that teenage girls have with pseudo-vampires any less sad than your infatuation with men in spandex and Heath Ledger? Its probably more justifiable for them. :)
KalMart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 06:13 PM   #112
Hotwire
Dealin' W/ Demons
 
Hotwire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,393
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
Anytime somebody has to reload a gun that gives people a chance to either sneak away or a chance to tackle that person. I honestly don't see any need to have 30 rounds to shoot at one given point.

As for picking an arbitrary number that is a fair question which I also ask why is it currently 30 and not 50 or 25, etc. While I think 10 will still do damage, I just think it will cut down on mass gun shootings damage. Is it a perfect solution, No, but it's an improvement without fully take away the use of a clip in general.
I'll tell you why it's 30. Because the M4 and the M16 before it can fire a 3 round burst. Since the AR15 is designed to mimic military hardware, the magazine size stuck.

However, we rarely put 30 rounds in because they had a nasty habit of jamming when you did. Instead, we loaded 27.

Hotwire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 06:30 PM   #113
KalMart
239-Bean Irish Chili
 
KalMart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,306
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
Anytime somebody has to reload a gun that gives people a chance to either sneak away or a chance to tackle that person. I honestly don't see any need to have 30 rounds to shoot at one given point.

As for picking an arbitrary number that is a fair question which I also ask why is it currently 30 and not 50 or 25, etc. While I think 10 will still do damage, I just think it will cut down on mass gun shootings damage. Is it a perfect solution, No, but it's an improvement without fully take away the use of a clip in general.
Well, to be technical, anything more than 30 probably wouldn't wouldn't work reliably in a box-style magazine because of how the springs work and it would end up being something like three feet long. Snail/drum magazines work differently and allow those larger capacities. 30 is a pretty standard maximum number for that format.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwire View Post
I'll tell you why it's 30. Because the M4 and the M16 before it can fire a 3 round burst. Since the AR15 is designed to mimic military hardware, the magazine size stuck.

However, we rarely put 30 rounds in because they had a nasty habit of jamming when you did. Instead, we loaded 27.
Legally-available AR's don't have tri-burst capability, as you probably already know. I do the same with a lot of different types of magazines, as full-cap can lead to misfeeds/hangups and early spring wear. But anyway...it's kinda' the same as why are there 400 + hp/180+ mph sports cars (more) available to the public when very few drivers out there have the skills to safely control a car at those performance levels? It's up to the user to exercise discretion, even though you'll get a nut every now and then that will race or try to outrun police and endanger every driver and pedestrian on the street.

Personally I'm fine with magazine restrictions to 10 for civilian ownership. It just doesn't solve anything, though...as someone could just buy more 10-rounders and whatever difference it might make from a 30, if at all, will only be discovered once the crime is already committed. Unfortunately, it's another one of those things that a pro-gunner would (seemingly) begrudgingly agree to, but realize how insignificant it is while 'bargaining' that they'll give that up but the buck stops there. It's kind of like trying to reduce alchoholism by restricting the sale of aluminum cans.

__________________
KalMart's Vids on YouTube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt
Plus, is the infatuation that teenage girls have with pseudo-vampires any less sad than your infatuation with men in spandex and Heath Ledger? Its probably more justifiable for them. :)

Last edited by KalMart; 04-10-2013 at 06:35 PM.
KalMart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 08:31 AM   #114
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwire View Post
Short answer-Complete gun registration. If all legal guns are registered, just like cars, it becomes easier to track the sales of those gun. Also, when law enforcement comes across a gun, they can check it's registration and, if it's illegal, the person who was carrying it is arrested and the gun is confiscated or destroyed.

We managed to implement this type of program with cars, it shouldn't be impossible to do with guns.
To gun owners, registration leads to confiscation. I know that gets a big roll eyes from the gun grabbers, but there's too many rabid politicians who want that very thing, and all it takes is a tragedy to get people thinking it's a good idea. NY has implemented measures that lead to a de facto ban with their 7 round limit and have had to back off of it because it would be problematic for the vast majority of firearms available, hence it would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. But mass confiscation was certainly on the table when the Safe Act was being discussed, and there are now confiscations taking place of some veterans who even show the slightest sign or have admitted to any type of PTSD.

A few years ago, I scoffed at the idea of the Government coming after all guns. I have a friend who buys into a lot of those conspiracy theories. I used to laugh at him. I'm not laughing anymore. I don't think that gun owners being leery of the possibilities of confiscation are being paranoid. It's happening, and registration makes that a lot easier to accomplish. They don't have to ban anything. All they have to do is some of the things that people on here seem to be fine with. They can introduce mandatory insurance coverage and make the cost so prohibitive that there would only be wealthy gun owners. Or ban certain attributes. Or arbitrary magazine capacities that no one makes. At this point, you'd have to be living in a hole with your head stuck deep in the dirt to think that confiscation of firearms isn't being considered and a move in that direction waiting for the next tragedy to occur so they can get the ball rolling.

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 08:42 AM   #115
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
Fair enough but I think the doing "x" won't stop stuff from happening therefore no use doing it is a losing message. The Pro Gun side would be better served recommending what potentially could make a difference when it comes to potential new gun laws
How about no new gun laws? How about we implement better social reforms and start looking at how criminals get started being criminals and implement ways to hinder that? How about we look at reforming how we diagnose and treat those who exhibit violent behavior and have violent mental illnesses?

All of those would save lives, I think. But they'd be a lot harder than forcing law abiding to register their guns or load a certain amount in their magazines that anyone committing a crime wouldn't bother with doing anyway. Making a difference, a real difference, takes effort. And that effort should be directed in preventing violence, period. There's too much effort being expended in passing laws that don't prevent anything. Do you really think that a criminal is going to use a 10 round magazine instead of a 30 due to a law in place when their about to commit a murder? Does that really matter in the big scheme of things when we should be worrying more about what made him/her want to commit that crime in the first place and take steps to prevent that instead of worrying about what they used to do it?

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 08:55 AM   #116
Hotwire
Dealin' W/ Demons
 
Hotwire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,393
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
To gun owners, registration leads to confiscation. I know that gets a big roll eyes from the gun grabbers, but there's too many rabid politicians who want that very thing, and all it takes is a tragedy to get people thinking it's a good idea. NY has implemented measures that lead to a de facto ban with their 7 round limit and have had to back off of it because it would be problematic for the vast majority of firearms available, hence it would be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment. But mass confiscation was certainly on the table when the Safe Act was being discussed, and there are now confiscations taking place of some veterans who even show the slightest sign or have admitted to any type of PTSD.

A few years ago, I scoffed at the idea of the Government coming after all guns. I have a friend who buys into a lot of those conspiracy theories. I used to laugh at him. I'm not laughing anymore. I don't think that gun owners being leery of the possibilities of confiscation are being paranoid. It's happening, and registration makes that a lot easier to accomplish. They don't have to ban anything. All they have to do is some of the things that people on here seem to be fine with. They can introduce mandatory insurance coverage and make the cost so prohibitive that there would only be wealthy gun owners. Or ban certain attributes. Or arbitrary magazine capacities that no one makes. At this point, you'd have to be living in a hole with your head stuck deep in the dirt to think that confiscation of firearms isn't being considered and a move in that direction waiting for the next tragedy to occur so they can get the ball rolling.
Just like most other conspiracy theories, this one can be shot down with one word. Capitalism. If the government were to confiscate all of the guns and then prevent citizens from owning them, that puts the gun manufacturers out of business. This buts a major hurt on the economy and thus, it will never get put through. Thinking that registration would lead to confiscation is really drawing a false conclusion based on fear.

Hotwire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:32 AM   #117
mrvlknight21
Pullups for breakfast!!
 
mrvlknight21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Augusta, GA
Posts: 6,289
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwire View Post
So, what's your idea for getting illegal guns off the streets?

Actually, since you brought up automobile deaths, and I put vehicle registration on the table, let's look at them. Because of the hazards involved in operating a motor vehicle, we set age restrictions, and other requirements. Why not do the same for gun owners? Why not make it mandatory for all gun owners to be of a certain age, go through training, and hen become licensed before they can own a gun? That would promote responsible gun ownership.

Personally, I'm tired of the pro-gun crowd shooting down every idea with the same whiney response of, "It's too hard."
I don't know of any states that don't have an age restriction for purchasing a gun. Some states require various checks and training for carry permits, but they all require a criminal background check for a carry permit. To my knowledge, North Carolina requires a permit and such o purchase a firearm (retail) and a bit of a wait as well.
Now, if you are saying that you want those permits to have national standards, I am ALL for it, especially if it allows those individuals to carry those firearms nationally.
Because right now, a Georgia weapons permit holder cannot legally carry in South Carolina (just one example).

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
I don't know the name of every part in a car engine does that mean I shouldn't have an opinion on cars?


it should be pointed out if somebody pulls a gun on you, you are more likely to be shot if you pull a gun out yourself then if you don't have a gun. Personally I will play the odds since I value my life then over a piece of property.
Now while I know how to drive a car. (Which takes training) I certainly don't have enough knowledge to recommend oils, change an engine part, or suggest a good way to get better gas mileage. So, knowledge for cars and guns is vastly different and I would agree that many who argue for gun control may be able pick up most firearms and shoot them, they could not strip it, clean it, or may not even be able to reload it. People with that level of knowledge need to be cautious about what they recommend to responsible gun owners when they discuss these issues.

And in regard to reacting to a threat and the risks involved, I would say that every situation is different and can be dynamic. Each situation could require a different reaction. If my situational awareness is low (mistake on my part) and someone already is close and has a gun drawn on me, no, I will probably not draw mine, at least not initially.
Just last week, I was out with the wife and observed a guy who began to approach us and I was prepared when he was within speaking range and told him to not even approach us. I was prepared and alert and when this guy saw that he turned and hurried away. Obviously, this potential threat was handled safely with nothing more than words. But things could have been different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable24 View Post
I agree 100%. laws need to be enforced. So how does restricting what gun owners can buy or the size of a magazine stop criminals?

You have to go after the person and not the item used to commit the crime.
Agreed

__________________
What are your goals?
mrvlknight21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:53 AM   #118
SV Fan
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
How about no new gun laws? How about we implement better social reforms and start looking at how criminals get started being criminals and implement ways to hinder that? How about we look at reforming how we diagnose and treat those who exhibit violent behavior and have violent mental illnesses?
How about we get an official head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to look at ways to punish people. The ATF hasn't had a person appointed to head the organization since 2004(they basically had a series of acting directors due tot he Republicans basically putting the Kibosh on anybody he gets pushed to head the organization).

SV Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:13 AM   #119
Hotwire
Dealin' W/ Demons
 
Hotwire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,393
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvlknight21 View Post
I don't know of any states that don't have an age restriction for purchasing a gun. Some states require various checks and training for carry permits, but they all require a criminal background check for a carry permit. To my knowledge, North Carolina requires a permit and such o purchase a firearm (retail) and a bit of a wait as well.
Now, if you are saying that you want those permits to have national standards, I am ALL for it, especially if it allows those individuals to carry those firearms nationally.
Because right now, a Georgia weapons permit holder cannot legally carry in South Carolina (just one example).
Yes, I was suggesting some sort of national standard and a national firearm license. This wouldn't be just to carry the gun but, to own the gun as well. Even if you just want a shotgun for home defense, the license is still required.
-Must be 18 to obtain a license.
-Must pass a nationally recognized training course.
-Must pass a criminal background check.
-License must be renewed every 3-5 years and can be revoked if you're convicted of any crime.
-License must be presented not only to purchase a firearm but also ammunition.
-Once licensed, you must carry a certain level of liability insurance.

Hotwire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:46 AM   #120
Kable24
Member of the NRA
 
Kable24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwire View Post
Yes, I was suggesting some sort of national standard and a national firearm license. This wouldn't be just to carry the gun but, to own the gun as well. Even if you just want a shotgun for home defense, the license is still required.
-Must be 18 to obtain a license.
-Must pass a nationally recognized training course.
-Must pass a criminal background check.
-License must be renewed every 3-5 years and can be revoked if you're convicted of any crime.
-License must be presented not only to purchase a firearm but also ammunition.
-Once licensed, you must carry a certain level of liability insurance.

I would agree with all of those except the last two. While, I don't have a problem showing a license to purchase a gun, since I already show my driver's license to buy it. I don't feel it needs to be shown to buy ammo.

I also don't feel I should have to buy liability insurance. I do have insurance on my guns if they are stolen or damaged in a fire in my home. If someone for some reason is hurt while looking at my guns in my home, my renters or home owners insurance would cover it as they were hurt in my home.

__________________
I'm done here.


Kable24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:57 AM   #121
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotwire View Post
Yes, I was suggesting some sort of national standard and a national firearm license. This wouldn't be just to carry the gun but, to own the gun as well. Even if you just want a shotgun for home defense, the license is still required.
-Must be 18 to obtain a license.
-Must pass a nationally recognized training course.
-Must pass a criminal background check.
-License must be renewed every 3-5 years and can be revoked if you're convicted of any crime.
-License must be presented not only to purchase a firearm but also ammunition.
-Once licensed, you must carry a certain level of liability insurance.
I wouldn't personally have a problem with a nationally recognized license, but the insurance requirement is a no-go. Owning firearms is a right, and the presence of the licensing and the other requirements is infringing on that right enough without the added problems of adding a financial burden on citizens that have nothing to do with crimes committed.

Also, once the license is granted, there are no further restrictions or applicable bans. And there are no firearms listed for the background check or on the license. That the citizen is qualified due to having no criminal record and the "proper training" and remains so by keeping their record clean should be enough.

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 12:05 PM   #122
Bill
Side-Kick
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,630
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by SV Fan View Post
How about we get an official head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to look at ways to punish people. The ATF hasn't had a person appointed to head the organization since 2004(they basically had a series of acting directors due tot he Republicans basically putting the Kibosh on anybody he gets pushed to head the organization).
Again, that's looking at crime after-the-fact. Obviously people still murder in spite of there being a death penalty or life imprisonment. So what devious ways of punishment could our new BAFTE overlord conjure up to prevent criminals from loading up 50 round magazines or having a firearm with a dastardly barrel shroud, much less the whole murdering thing? I don't see any real need for a BAFTE leader unless there is someone educated in the subject of firearms to better define their use and characteristics for classification. That certainly needs to be cleaned up.

I think progress needs to be made to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place. Can BAFTE do that?

__________________
What is a Survivalist?
Someone who hates the woods so much that they train to be able to get out of it if they ever happen to be caught out there.
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 12:07 PM   #123
Kable24
Member of the NRA
 
Kable24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 12,861
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
I wouldn't personally have a problem with a nationally recognized license, but the insurance requirement is a no-go. Owning firearms is a right, and the presence of the licensing and the other requirements is infringing on that right enough without the added problems of adding a financial burden on citizens that have nothing to do with crimes committed.

Also, once the license is granted, there are no further restrictions or applicable bans. And there are no firearms listed for the background check or on the license. That the citizen is qualified due to having no criminal record and the "proper training" and remains so by keeping their record clean should be enough.
So are you saying that I could purchase a Class III with no ATF tax stamp BS? I could definitely live with that.

__________________
I'm done here.


Kable24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 12:08 PM   #124
mrvlknight21
Pullups for breakfast!!
 
mrvlknight21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Augusta, GA
Posts: 6,289
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kable24 View Post
I would agree with all of those except the last two. While, I don't have a problem showing a license to purchase a gun, since I already show my driver's license to buy it. I don't feel it needs to be shown to buy ammo.

I also don't feel I should have to buy liability insurance. I do have insurance on my guns if they are stolen or damaged in a fire in my home. If someone for some reason is hurt while looking at my guns in my home, my renters or home owners insurance would cover it as they were hurt in my home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill View Post
I wouldn't personally have a problem with a nationally recognized license, but the insurance requirement is a no-go. Owning firearms is a right, and the presence of the licensing and the other requirements is infringing on that right enough without the added problems of adding a financial burden on citizens that have nothing to do with crimes committed.

Also, once the license is granted, there are no further restrictions or applicable bans. And there are no firearms listed for the background check or on the license. That the citizen is qualified due to having no criminal record and the "proper training" and remains so by keeping their record clean should be enough.
AGREED!

[QUOTE=Bill;25569361]
I think progress needs to be made to keep people from becoming criminals in the first place. [QUOTE]

^ This X100000000000000

__________________
What are your goals?
mrvlknight21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 12:10 PM   #125
Super Kal
Side-Kick
 
Super Kal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: a northern state :(
Posts: 47,740
Default Re: Discussion: The Second Amendment V

you got the $30,000+ to pay for it, kable24?

__________________
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and His commandments are not burdensome.
Super Kal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.