I'm against the current system of de facto registration. I am not against NICS checks.

4/18/2013 4:18:45 PM

Quote :

" no. such. thing. "

really poor semantics argument. there is a private sale loophole. this loophole is often called a "gunshow loophole." that term is not completely accurate (since some sales at gun shows are by licensed dealers, and private sales can happen outside of gun shows), but you knew what it meant and are making a silly aaronburro argument.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 4:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2013 4:27:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm against the current system of de facto registration. I am not against NICS checks."

ditto

4/18/2013 4:47:37 PM

Quote :

"really poor semantics argument. there is a private sale loophole. this loophole is often called a "gunshow loophole." that term is not completely accurate (since some sales at gun shows are by licensed dealers, and private sales can happen outside of gun shows), but you knew what it meant and are making a silly aaronburro argument. "

not when it's intentionally used to confuse the argument to gain support based on false and misleading information. Just like the current liberal buzzphrase of "weapons of war". It's misleading and nothing but fearmongering meant to gain unfoudned support. Closing the "gun show loophole" came in the form of creating felons out of most gun owners. Luckily, it won't pass.



[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2013 4:55:32 PM

Assault weapons is used to confuse people

gunshow loophole is not, it was just coined when the discussion was about gun shows. Do you think people are more afraid that guns purchased at shows don't require background checks, then the reality that its about private sales that happen anywhere? That just doesn't make sense, if it was about intentionally scaring people they would just have to point out the reality, they could call them front door sales or parking lot sales or anything.

"this loophole is about buying guns at gun shows?"
"you don't need a show, you can buy a gun with no background check every day anytime whenever you want to!"
"that's way worse"

4/18/2013 5:51:29 PM

Actually, if we called them what they really were, it would be face to face sales between two private citizens who must both be residents of the same state, both of whom can not be convicted felons or otherwise federally prohibited and both of whom must be legally able to acquire the gun in question in that state (such as needing a pistol permit in nc). Everything else is illegal without a NICS check.

4/18/2013 6:50:49 PM

What's the punishment if private citizen b lies to private citizen a about his felon status or other ability to acquire a gun?

4/18/2013 6:52:34 PM

^That is why gun owners want the NICS system opened up to the public.
Then they can do their own check to verify the status of someone trying to purchase a gun in a private sale.

4/18/2013 7:02:39 PM

So if the NICS system were opened up, you'd be okay with having criminal penalties for people transferring guns who fail to use the system?

4/18/2013 7:08:06 PM

No. The whole point is to not criminalize legal behavior. I don't have to verify your drivers license status to sell you a car, and I don't have to verify your criminal history to sell you a chainsaw or a knife either. Hell, you might be legally prohibited from owning a phone or computer, but I don't have to check with the state before I can sell you one. The responsibility to obey the legal restrictions is on you and the state. And quite frankly, if the state can't trust you to obey those restrictions, they never should have let you out of jail in the first place. Putting an unreasonable burden on the citizens to do what is the responsibility of the state is wrong.

It's also worth pointing out that currently, most FFLs will require a $25-$50 fee to perform an FFL transfer. Given the current fervor over how a (state subsidized) voting ID would unfairly hinder the poor from exercising their constitutional rights, how does adding an additional legally imposed charge to an already potentially expensive transaction not unfairly hinder the poor from exercising their rights in this case? Or do the poor not deserve the right to protect themselves?

4/18/2013 8:12:18 PM

you need a valid drivers license to register a car and legally drive it on the road

amazingly, the government hasn't rounded up all car owners and taken their cars away from them

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM. Reason : same old canards]

4/18/2013 8:36:36 PM

I'm sure a bunch of people would have a problem with this, so I say in advance that I don't expect many people who are advocating against restrictions will like this, but here's how I see the problem. I am putting this forth as something that I would like honest feedback on from gun folks, not as an argument starter. I will explain at the end why I see this as the most reasonable of solutions, but I am open to other solutions that will solve the problem.

The problem isn't gun ownership, it's gun use in inappropriate ways, and guns making it into the hands of those who shouldn't have them. There really isn't any way to solve the gun violence problem without addressing that. Based on my reading of the statistics, it is a minority of gun users (I am reluctant to even say owners) who are responsible for the majority of the offenses.

It involves registry, so I should say that from the beginning, but only new guns. And no, this won't solve the whole problem, but I think it will be a start. All guns imported or manufactured in the United States are registered by the manufacturer or importer at the time. Then, whenever a transfer of a gun is made, the new owner simply registers that gun in their own name. It would also involve background checks, but you open the NICS system up publicly (or some other system) for easy checking. The new owner would be sent some information confirming they are in fact the new owner, or have to actively confirm the information somehow.

There is no punishment for failure to register. There is no punishment for selling a gun to someone and not conducting a background check. However, if a gun is then used by someone who was a felon, or for some other reason did not have rights to the gun, then the last person who had registered the gun is held responsible. A first offense is minor in most cases, a misdemeanor with a small fine, but multiple offenses would increase the punishment significantly.

The idea is similar to businesses being required to use the E-Verify system before hiring workers. which in my opinion is a far more effective policing mechanism than trying to catch and deport all illegal immigrants.

Essentially, you cannot stop criminals from attempting to find guns and commit crimes. That is in their nature. However, the method of obtaining guns at some point "generally" (I know there are exceptions) comes from a valid, legal supply source. All you have to do is say, if you are selling a gun or transferring a gun to someone who should not have it, according to this widely available background check system we have, then if that person commits a crime or later sells it to someone else who commits a crime, then you have a certain degree of culpability. If you leave your gun out and some kid kills himself, there should be a certain degree of culpability, or you should at least be called to explain why that isn't the case. Guns are pretty much the perfect killing device, and I don't think it's asking too much to just say, basically, "Keep track of your guns and you're cool. Give them to the wrong person and you're part of the problem."

I believe it's perfectly fine to own whatever gun you want, as long as you are responsible, so I wouldn't limit clip size, assault weapons, or any of that stuff. However, the problem is that a small percentage of people in this country have shown themselves to be irresponsible. The result is crime, violence, and death, whether accidental, suicide, mass murder, mental illness, whatever. I understand that the result of this is to place an additional level of responsibility on those who have guns. I don't see this as limiting any rights of responsible, legal gun owners.

I understand that two primary complaints are that responsible law abiding citizens shouldn't bear the burden for other criminals who won't follow the law, but isn't the real issue that some of those in the former group are clearly selling guns to those in the latter, by skirting the existing laws, which is relatively easy? The second is that any registry will be used to take guns away at some future time. I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments. I think, frankly, that if a system like this was put into place, then gun violence, especially from criminals, would decrease significantly, and as a result there would be far fewer cries to outlaw guns.

So there you go...have at it...I'm sure there are a lot of flaws in my proposal, but I would like to hear honest feedback on it from gun folks, and also, is there a different plan that others can think of that will actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, juveniles, etc.?

(Also, I know nothing like this plan will ever happen. But logically, I'm just wondering why it shouldn't. Also, I'm not wedded to the particulars, and I haven't thought out all the specifics of the consequences, but I think you get the general idea.)

Also, I would advocate for the use of this system and the transfer of registration to be at an extremely minimal cost. Maybe it would be included in the price of the initial sale from the manufacturer or something...but in all likelihood it could be free, just because I would foresee a decrease in expenditures in other areas of law enforcement to offset the cost. But again, something I'm not wedded to.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 8:50 PM. Reason : sdf]

4/18/2013 8:47:43 PM

i'm fucking tired of guns being compared to cars

^here's one reason it won't work: no one is gonna register their guns

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 8:53 PM. Reason : adf]

4/18/2013 8:49:59 PM

I get it...which is a perfectly respectable choice. But we agree that it may come with a consequence.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 8:56 PM. Reason : n]

4/18/2013 8:55:57 PM

problem with your logic is... guns are as easy to ship in illegally as drugs are...

i knew where to get drugs in my high school.... (point being you are just going to expand an un-regulated fire-arm black market)

it reverts back to if someone is intent on killing they will end up killing... with or without a gun... no matter how great the extent you make them go to get it they will. Or maybe with an improvised bomb as in boston.. or knives... or potato gun... or friggin anything... it's to easy to improvise a weapon making it a moot point to regulate manufactured weapons.

you are not fixing crazy.... there is no real solution....
these people are broken... society needs to find a better way to deal with them not try to work around the real problem by banning the weapons

This is like rather than teaching your kid how to be safe with a steak knife you try to eat steak with a fork and spoon.


Also throughout history gun registration has almost always lead to confiscation... which is what the british tried to do to the colonies which is why we have the friggin 2nd ammendment in the first place. This is why gun owners despise the idea of it. I don't think its a good thing but i'm also not in the "ohh mah gurrrd our govts trying to dis arm us" group. I don't think they are... yet... but i don't want to help them if they decide to later. (keep in mind hitler was voted in to office)

people need to stop trying to ban everything that they don't like.
not that many people are murdered every year... statistically as horrific as these shootings/bombings/ etc. are... they are a statistical probability that you will never avoid .1% (that works out to about 1.2 kids per school when/where i was in school) of our society is BAT FUCKING SHIT CRAZY and the fact that this doesn't happen more often then it does surprises me.

[Edited on April 18, 2013 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2013 9:00:56 PM

^^ I will, but I'm not a criminal like TheDuke866

4/18/2013 9:00:59 PM

correct you are of less than sound judgement.

4/18/2013 9:12:40 PM

Well it should be clear that the initial sale will always consist of a registered transfer, unless the salesman is willing to take a risk with what the purchaser chooses to do with the gun. I can't imagine many sellers on any sort of scale would be willing to risk this.

4/18/2013 9:25:21 PM

Quote :

"you are not fixing crazy.... there is no real solution.... these people are broken... "

It's not about fixing anything, it's about mitigating unnecessary risk.

The Newtown guy was thwarted because he couldn't walk into a store and buy a gun. Unfortunately, his mother gave him access to her cache, even knowing he was completely nuts.

What's the point of a background check system or waiting period laws, when these are easy to legally bypass? When most gun sales bypass these mechanisms anyway? Why not just ditch the whole background check/waiting period system?

Guns are uniquely dangerous tools, that society has always treated differently than other things. It makes sense in the overall effort to control crime, to also control the distribution of weapons doesn't it?

4/18/2013 10:33:32 PM

Quote :

"correct you are of less than sound judgement."

says the guy who would willingly violate a federal gun law


you go ahead with that, I'll send you a card when you are in prison

4/18/2013 10:38:23 PM

Pretty sure this country got started by not following laws.

4/18/2013 10:47:12 PM

that's some real deep insight

4/18/2013 11:02:19 PM

4/18/2013 11:08:20 PM

The failure of the "compromise of compromises" on gun control could end up creating a backlash, making the push even stronger too.

4/18/2013 11:14:58 PM

And Rosa Parks should have walked her black ass to the back of the bus, right?

That was the law, correct?

4/18/2013 11:20:18 PM

LOL

Gun owners aren't being oppressed.

But, keep saying things like that... it will surely help your cause ;-)

4/18/2013 11:21:59 PM

That was in response to labeling me a criminal for my stance that I wouldn't register my guns in a hypothetical scenario where registration was imposed.

4/19/2013 1:09:34 AM

holy fuck.

4/19/2013 1:25:00 AM

^^ if you want to use civil disobedience, just don't complain about it when you are arrested for it. and i'd assume an arrest for a federal gun crime probable isn't good for a military career/

4/19/2013 7:23:50 AM

Doesn't it kind of say something if you basically say you will only follow the laws you personally agree with? I may disagree with some of the crazy laws that our new NC Legislature is passing, but I still follow them. I understand that certain laws may need to be resisted in protest, but don't compare yourself to Rosa Parks. Civil rights activists were perfectly comfortable openly flaunting a law because they felt that was how you fought it, by making the courts and the public recognize the problem.

It just seems interesting to say you will only obey the law if it stays the way you want. I'm sure we'd all like to be the Supreme Court and be arbiters of what is and is not constitutional, but until that happens, it seems the two options are open dissent and stand for your principles or follow the law.

Again, this is all hypotheticals.

[Edited on April 19, 2013 at 7:25 AM. Reason : ^ditto]

4/19/2013 7:25:14 AM

handicap spots are oppressing me, so i'm just going to start parking in them

4/19/2013 7:33:24 AM

4/19/2013 7:58:48 AM

As long as you all are okay with jail, civil disobedience is more than just ignoring laws you don't like.

4/19/2013 8:25:57 AM

ITT, whole bunch of

4/19/2013 8:44:14 AM

taking screen caps

theDuke866 will be the first person I report to the ATF after the registration requirement goes into effect

4/19/2013 9:22:11 AM

What blows my mind are the people in this thread who think that current gun laws are already too restrictive. Ya'll should move to Utah. You can carry a gun with you basically everywhere here, with our without a CCP. Even at public universities. Since I work at one, I could theoretically carry a loaded handgun on me 24/7 if I wanted too.

4/19/2013 10:50:14 AM

Quote :

"What's the point of a background check system or waiting period laws, when these are easy to legally bypass? When most gun sales bypass these mechanisms anyway? Why not just ditch the whole background check/waiting period system? Guns are uniquely dangerous tools, that society has always treated differently than other things. It makes sense in the overall effort to control crime, to also control the distribution of weapons doesn't it?"

you are assuming the local gun store is the only place for a weapon to originate.

it's not... making the entire system worthless.

right now it's not financially viable to import weapons for the black market unless full-auto... when semi-autos become worth it you're going to have an entirely other... COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED stream of weapons coming in.

however... i do think that every weapon transfer should go through an FFL (all of mine have) or inheritance.

Quote :

"The Newtown guy was thwarted because he couldn't walk into a store and buy a gun. Unfortunately, his mother gave him access to her cache, even knowing he was completely nuts."

where does he go next if his mother doesn't? someone who plans to kill someone will go to irrational measures to complete their task because they're already killing someone which in it's self is an irrational measure.

KILLING SOMEONE IS AGAINST THE LAW
if you are willing to do that wtf are a couple more infractions going to do to stop you?

NOT A DAMNED THING..

You're trying to deter a person thats intent on doing something by annoying the rest of use that will use it as a tool.

The waiting period prevents crimes of passion... people who are temporarily crazy but will become rational when they cool down... this is a good idea so people don't get killed for cheating and their other go to jail forever for having an unfaithful partner.

Registries do not do anything but ensure that criminals with steal other peoples guns or use un registered guns...

It actually gives someone a public record of who has guns to steal. Or who is not protected by a gun making them an easy target.

4/19/2013 11:26:08 AM

Seriously, the idea that criminals don't follow laws, so why make laws to stop them?

Then why make laws against speeding, or drugs, or stealing, or ANYTHING???

And then saying that what will happen is illegal gun shipments from overseas and those will be distributed?

If that's the theory, then we shouldn't make laws regarding large scale Sudafed purchases, purchases of large scale amounts of fertilizer and explosive materials, because there are always other methods achieving a goal. The key is that these limitations have made it significantly HARDER to commit these crimes, but no, you won't eliminate all gun crimes. It's not an all or nothing proposition.

You're throwing the most irrational arguments up to oppose these concepts.

Criminals will look at public registries and decide who to steal their guns from, or who to victimize? WTF? Really? You think the individuals we're generally worried about are using complicated schemes to commit their crimes?

And a registry has a simple impact. It makes gun owners ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE, instead of just in theory. You are responsible for your guns, that's it.

I have one very simple question for you. If a gun is legally manufactured and later ends up in the hands of a criminal, or someone who is irresponsible, like a juvenile or a mentally impaired person...at what point in the chain is there actual responsibility for allowing that to happen? If you sell alcohol to a minor, you're responsible. Same thing with cigarettes. Are you claiming that the seller has absolutely no responsibility, morally, ethically, or legally? I respect the right to own firearms, but don't rights also correspond with responsibilities?

(I will agree that people may have a logical fear of a registry, and I do understand that. I think many of the people who are gun advocates dovetail with those who distrust government, and are much more likely to fear government tyranny. Also, I don't want to be unreasonable. Can you propose another solution to the gun problem, or is your argument that there is simply no solution at all?)



[Edited on April 20, 2013 at 1:34 AM. Reason : c]

4/20/2013 1:17:29 AM

4/20/2013 1:56:11 AM

.

[Edited on April 20, 2013 at 6:38 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2013 6:32:16 AM

^^crack should be legal imo

4/20/2013 7:17:50 AM

Quote :

"If that's the theory, then we shouldn't make laws regarding large scale Sudafed purchases, purchases of large scale amounts of fertilizer and explosive materials, because there are always other methods achieving a goal. The key is that these limitations have made it significantly HARDER to commit these crimes, but no, you won't eliminate all gun crimes. It's not an all or nothing proposition. "

Well, yes, we shouldn't have those laws. Do you seriously think that the law which now requires you to present photo ID, sign an affidavit, requires pharmacists to explicitly track what used to be an OTC medication with as much strictness as a narcotic has in any significant way reduced or harmed the illicit drug trade? Yes, I suppose it is possible that on the grand scale, the use of meth derived from sudafed products has gone down. But the point which you seem to be missing is that illicit drugs and drug use has not. It's the same point that gun owners ar making. Yes heavy gun restrictions that unfairly and unreasonably restrict law abiding citizens might reduce the total number of crimes committed with guns covered by the restrictions, but they will not reduce the actual crime rate. For more reading on this, read the rest of the thread as we've gone into more detail before.

4/20/2013 8:27:51 AM

Quote :

"Seriously, the idea that criminals don't follow laws, so why make laws to stop them? Then why make laws against speeding, or drugs, or stealing, or ANYTHING??? "

Where you fail here, is that firearm ownership and possession is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed. That's why laws limiting this right should be passed or at least greatly scrutinized before debate and passage. We don't violate the constitutional right of most to solve a problem of a few. Driving nor speeding is a right and thus subject to a much greater level of restriction.

4/20/2013 9:22:25 AM

reasonable controls are not infringement per our supreme court as long as they are not arbitrary. background checks would not be arbitrary.

4/20/2013 9:41:38 AM

^^^I looked through the last 15 pages or so and didn't see anything indicating that the overall crime rate would be untouched. If there are particular statistics you have that would help, I'd appreciate if you could link or post to them again.

If you mean that it won't impact other, non-gun related offenses, then I'd have to agree. But if what has happened in Australia is any indication, you take out a lot of the murders, suicides, and mass killings. I guess that just seems like enough of a start to me.

^^And we don't "violate" constitutional rights by placing restrictions on them (this seems to be the implication). Jurisprudence is about finding those lines. The Supreme Court basically looks at a right, decides the nature of that right, and then the test to be used when scrutinizing that right, and then compares that to the state interest to be served. It's a constantly shifting landscape, and restricting a right is not violating it. It would be incorrect to assume that rights are without limit. The federal or state governments passing laws to restrict those rights don't "violate" anything if it hasn't already been tested before the Court. Many times there is a balance between the rights of an individual to act or behave in a certain way and the state's decision about regulation, commonly referred to as its police powers. Deciding who can get married and the type of sex you can have are primary examples...and if you want to be more explicit, requiring a permit process before you can protest or limiting where you can protest are also examples.

[Edited on April 20, 2013 at 9:45 AM. Reason : df]

4/20/2013 9:44:06 AM

^^^^ http://www.methhelponline.com/meth-statistics.htm

The laws have had an effect, as I'm sure you know. This has also increased the cross border trafficking but that's a different problem.

There is a more sensible way for us to structure our gun policy, but as was said on the first page, gun massacres and gun violence are the price we've (or a group of senators at least) chosen to pay for gun freedom. That's the reality. Less restrictive gun laws have no inherent benefit over more restrictive laws, and have countless draw backs, we've just chosen to accept those drawbacks at the cost of Newtown and the like.

[Edited on April 20, 2013 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ]

4/20/2013 9:46:17 AM

Quote :

"is that firearm ownership and possession is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed"

What you're forgetting is that there is a constitutional mandate for this right to be "well regulated".

4/20/2013 9:48:08 AM

Here's the other thing. I wonder, is there any amount of logic or reason that could get gun owners to change their minds? Like, if it was shown that registration and background checks were effective, and that gun crimes would drop drastically, and that there would not be a confiscation of guns....would it matter?

It seems like conservative tax policy, in that no amount of data will change the position that lower taxes = always the best solution.

I mean, if there are stats that basically show a particular policy on gun control will not be effective, I'm fine with changing my position. I just don't see that ever really happening on the other side of the debate.

4/20/2013 9:54:51 AM

That's not what it says.

Quote :

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says that the militia should be well regulated. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

4/20/2013 9:56:05 AM

the supreme court is who decides constitutional issues in this country, and they are okay with non-arbitrary controls

this was my post 50 pages ago:

Quote :

"aaronburro, while we might be on the same side of this issue in general, the supreme court has upheld as recently as heller v district of columbia that some restrictions are constitutional, so your "shall not be infringed" argument doesn't really work in the way you want it to. they do require that they be reasonable restrictions and they stayed away from ruling on the restrictions directly, but its definitely okay to infringe some and be constitutional. so what you need to point out is that those things are "capricious and arbitrary" to be inline with Supreme Court decisions and obiter dicta"

that was in relation to an AWB. Background checks would not meet be capricious or arbitrary.

[Edited on April 20, 2013 at 10:16 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2013 10:04:18 AM