Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[wiegeabo]

If we're talking background checks, sure.

If we're talking about bans, that's not a start at all. Because you're punishing everyone, not just the crazies.

 

[SV Fan]

If we're talking background checks, sure.

If we're talking about bans, that's not a start at all. Because you're punishing everyone, not just the crazies.

I am on the side of background checks and reduce the size of clips, anything beyond that is to much. I do agree with you though just doing this kind of stuff and not getting to the root of the problem(ie crazy people or poor urban areas) doesn't help

 

[redhawk23]

So we ban knives now, right guys?

Sadly, this is all that will happen if we "get rid of guns". We're just lucky they haven't started using backpacks full of molotov cocktails yet. Toss one of those in a classroom, and see what happens. We might actually wish they just went back to guns. At least bullets can miss.

14 hits. No deaths.

People kill people. Why help it be easier to do so?

 

[wiegeabo]

because it's punishing 99.99% of the people for the act of a few, who are criminals.

It makes no sense to take guns away from the millions of responsible owners who will only ever use them legally.

What makes sense is taking it away from the disturbed individuals, preferably before they can even get their hands on them.

Every gun tragedy should not be used to spur action to ban guns. It should be used to spur action to identify and treat the disturbed people, to keep guns out of their hands, not everyone's hands, and to promote responsible use and ownership of guns.

It should also spur a call to go after all the illegal guns. Because once we start effectively keeping legal guns out of the hands of these people, they're likely to start going to the black market to pick up illegal firearms.

 

[Kelly]

because it's punishing 99.99% of the people for the act of a few, who are criminals.

It makes no sense to take guns away from the millions of responsible owners who will only ever use them legally.

What makes sense is taking it away from the disturbed individuals, preferably before they can even get their hands on them.

Every gun tragedy should not be used to spur action to ban guns. It should be used to spur action to identify and treat the disturbed people, to keep guns out of their hands, not everyone's hands, and to promote responsible use and ownership of guns.

It should also spur a call to go after all the illegal guns. Because once we start effectively keeping legal guns out of the hands of these people, they're likely to start going to the black market to pick up illegal firearms.

That is what most of our laws do...

 

[SV Fan]

It makes no sense to take guns away from the millions of responsible owners who will only ever use them legally.

Most people who want tougher gun laws don't want to completely ban guns. I see this argument all the time from the pro gun side, anytime somebody wants to change one or 2 things about gun laws(generally tougher background checks and restricting clip size) all of a sudden the pro gun person is debating against a strawman who wants to completely get rid of guns and not answering the question at hand.

In the case of redhawk23 their was nothing he said that made me believe he wants to ban all guns period, but the response you gave makes it seem like you did.

 

[Hotwire]

Shows that guns aren't the cause of violence; just a tool being used by whichever crazed person wielding it.

No, guns are not the cause of violence. They just make violence a lot easier.

 

[Kelly]

I would be much more willing to back Obama in these gun laws, IF....he showed any kind of desire to stop the illegal gun trafficking across our borders...but he has shown absolutely no movement in that area, and in reality helped it along...and of course it was necessarily him, but it seems the lack of oversight from this administration hasn't gotten any stronger over the last 5 years...

And please people don't compare what Obama did with what Bush did.....that has already been proven several times on these threads that "Fast and Furious" is absolutely and totally different from "Operation Wide Receiver"..."Fast and Furious" was a gun walking operation...."Operation Wide Receiver" was a gun tracing operation...TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS. Just wanted to make that clear, because that is usually what happens when I bring this up.

So, IF OBAMA actually showed some desire to stop illegal guns across the borders an in our major urban areas, then I would be all for his other gun laws.

It would show that he knew a little bit about what he was talking about...

 

[wiegeabo]

Most people who want tougher gun laws don't want to completely ban guns. I see this argument all the time from the pro gun side, anytime somebody wants to change one or 2 things about gun laws(generally tougher background checks and restricting clip size) all of a sudden the pro gun person is debating against a strawman who wants to completely get rid of guns and not answering the question at hand.

In the case of redhawk23 their was nothing he said that made me believe he wants to ban all guns period, but the response you gave makes it seem like you did.

And I interpreted as he did.

And if you interpret what I said, you'd see that I was in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the crazies. Background checks are fine by me.

 

[Hotwire]

Just a thought. How exactly, do we keep guns away from the mentally ill? Doctor/patient privilege would prevent their diagnosis from being shared.

 

[SV Fan]

Just a thought. How exactly, do we keep guns away from the mentally ill? Doctor/patient privilege would prevent their diagnosis from being shared.

Simple fact their is no possible way to 100% keep it out of crazy people's hands but you do stuff such as background checks to curb it down a bit

 

[wiegeabo]

Just a thought. How exactly, do we keep guns away from the mentally ill? Doctor/patient privilege would prevent their diagnosis from being shared.

Well, a doctor can break privilege if a patient has said they plan to hurt themselves and others.

Also, on a background check, previous mental illness/treatment would raise a red flag. The patient and doctor wouldn't have to go into details about illness and treatment, but the doctor would have to certify the patient is competent to own a firearm. And the doctor would be criminally and civilly liable for lying, and possibly for just being wrong (being wrong would at least expose them to civil wrongful death suits).

 

[redhawk23]

And I interpreted as he did.

And if you interpret what I said, you'd see that I was in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the crazies. Background checks are fine by me.

I'm not for banning all guns, but weapons with huge ammo carrying capacities are problematic.

Its harder to plan to kill dozens of people if you have to do it with a blade.


I was just offering a counterpoint though to oft repeated cliche of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

 

[Bill]

I am on the side of background checks and reduce the size of clips, anything beyond that is to much. I do agree with you though just doing this kind of stuff and not getting to the root of the problem(ie crazy people or poor urban areas) doesn't help

Frankly, reducing magazine capacity will not affect those who break the law either. I shouldn't be forced to use a reduced capacity magazine when no criminal alive will bother with following any such law when they have more pressing crimes to commit. It sits squarely in the area of not addressing any issue related to the criminal getting the weapon or preventing the criminal behavior in the first place.

 

[Kable24]

[YT]hiIGUFhPfO8[/YT]
The truth behind the term "Gun Show Loophole"

 

[SV Fan]

[YT]hiIGUFhPfO8[/YT]
The truth behind the term "Gun Show Loophole"

He still doesn't answer the question how many guns sales avoid background checks being done via private sales. He basically is arguing about a number(40%) but in no way proves that it never happens. Let's say 10% of guns sales done through private sales avoid background checks that is 10% to much.

Instead his argument is their number is wrong therefore everything else is invalid by proxy so don't change the laws

If you want to argue that a family members shouldn't have to go through a gun check argue on the basis ok we will close the gunshow loophole on private sales that are done through craigslist or at gun shows where 2 people don't know eachother are making the transactions but leave family member transactions alone, therefore the gunshow loophole can be the family member loophole, but don't give me crap well it's not really 40% therefore let's scrap the idea all together because the gun control side is using faulty statistics from 20 years ago

 

[Kable24]

How do you close that "loophole"? How does the Government know what I have in terms of firearms? I honestly don't see this bill getting through, but say they pass the Universal background check, how is anyone going to know if I sell my guns to anyone I want?

Same with the morons in CT and Ny telling people they have to sell their 30 round magazines within a year. I wouldn't. There is no way for them to know, unless they forcibly come into my home to look for them.

 

[SV Fan]

How do you close that "loophole"? How does the Government know what I have in terms of firearms? I honestly don't see this bill getting through, but say they pass the Universal background check, how is anyone going to know if I sell my guns to anyone I want?

So now we are using the argument there is no way to enforce it so why bother. All I would do is randomly pick people off of web sales or at gun shows and buy a gun from them, if they do a gun check they ok, if they don't heavily fine them and/or jailtime(I would go more on the side of fines and revoke a persons right to buy guns in the future).

That argument is right up their with Background checks wouldn't have prevented what happened in Newton so why bother doing anything at all about it.

It seems like all I hear out of the pro gun side is unless something can 100% stamp out potential issues it's pointless doing anything and it seems like that is their answer to most things(well if we do that it won't stop these issues from continuing to happen)

 

[Kelly]

So now we are using the argument there is no way to enforce it so why bother. All I would do is randomly pick people off of web sales or at gun shows and buy a gun from them, if they do a gun check they ok, if they don't heavily fine them and/or jailtime(I would go more on the side of fines and revoke a persons right to buy guns in the future).

That argument is right up their with Background checks wouldn't have prevented what happened in Newton so why bother doing anything at all about it.

It seems like all I hear out of the pro gun side is unless something can 100% stamp out potential issues it's pointless doing anything and it seems like that is their answer to most things(well if we do that it won't stop these issues from continuing to happen)

Neither side, IMO, is promoting their options in a manner that I would go with one or the other.

First of all, the pro-gun side needs to NOT let the President of the NRA speak for them, he is an idiot and ONLY speaks for a very small fraction of gun owners.

The Anti-gun side needs to educate themselves more before they speak, because the people speaking out, truly DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Once that happens, I might start listening to their opinions.

 

[SV Fan]

Neither side, IMO, is promoting their options in a manner that I would go with one or the other.

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

 

[Hotwire]

How do you close that "loophole"? How does the Government know what I have in terms of firearms? I honestly don't see this bill getting through, but say they pass the Universal background check, how is anyone going to know if I sell my guns to anyone I want?

Same with the morons in CT and Ny telling people they have to sell their 30 round magazines within a year. I wouldn't. There is no way for them to know, unless they forcibly come into my home to look for them.

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.

 

[SV Fan]

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.

Good luck with that, the UN is taking over the world types would have a field day with that, infact if you sign that into legislation it might cause a civil war. lol

 

[Webfoot Hero]

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.

Good luck in trying to create a solitary database with all the guns that are already in circulation and then getting everyone to comply. There are plenty of law enforcement types (especially county sheriffs) that wouldn't even enforce such registration attempts or the fine system on those who have guns. It'd be another law that gets added to the books that has no financial backing or willpower to actually do the enforcement.

 

[Kable24]

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.

I guess my guns will be undocumented then if that happens.

 

[Hotwire]

So let's just do nothing about stopping illegal guns. Because if you're not going to even try to keep track of who owns guns, than every other measure falls apart. New York already tried taking guns away from a man who had been on psychotropic drugs and his lawyer is having a field day with it.

If everyone buying a gun is required to fill out Form 4473, and that gets logged into the shop's "bound book" why would it be so hard on turn that into a national registry?

It also bothers me that a law abiding gun owner would so easily and wantonly become a law breaking gun owner just because he didn't like the law.