My point is, why should someone convicted of a violent felony be back out on the street in 5 years?? If folks who committed rape, armed robbery, attempted murder, and murder were kept in jail for 20-25 years or more, we wouldn't have many of these problems. We know guys like this don't go on to become upstanding citizens, so why do we give them 3rd/4th/5th chances to prey on law-abiding citizens???
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Closing the "gun show loophole"... rationally
- Thread starter tube_ee
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
My point is, why should someone convicted of a violent felony be back out on the street in 5 years?? If folks who committed rape, armed robbery, attempted murder, and murder were kept in jail for 20-25 years or more, we wouldn't have many of these problems. We know guys like this don't go on to become upstanding citizens, so why do we give them 3rd/4th/5th chances to prey on law-abiding citizens???
The bigger question here is,
If you cannot trust someone with a ballot or a bullet, why did you let them out of prison?
Done the time? Then you've repaid the crime, and you should have all of your rights back. If the term of sentence was too short to make that certain, then that's a sentencing issue, not an issue of the individual.
None of which is relevant to the original question I posed:
If some restrictions on private sales are inevitable (and I think that's true), what would we want our legislators to agree to?
If the issue is really about the buyers, (we know that it isn't) then providing private sellers access to the NICS database would close the loophole.
If the goal is actually to make it as difficult as possible to purchase a firearm, so that very few will do it, leaving people who care about this at all in the minority, (which is really what the Bradys want), then at least we can flush them out into the open by proposing our own standards that will do what they say they want to do.
You cannot stop a liar from lying, but you can make it very obvious that that's what they are doing. One of the biggest problem we've had with the antis is that their framing sounds so reasonable. "We're just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands." And who could disagree with that? What they do not say is that "the wrong hands" is any hands other than those of the military and the police. But, that's not what most Americans think of when they think of "the wrong hands".
We need to advocate for policies that truly "keep guns out of the wrong hands." But we need to be clear whose hands are "the wrong hands." For the Bradys, the answer is clear. Your hands are the wrong hands, although they won't actually say that.
We need a definition, and a set of policies that go along with it, that define what "the wrong hands" are.
That was what I was proposing. Clearly, I don't have the final answer. So I'm looking for solutions.
We all know where we want to be. A place where the law-abiding citizen can get any gun he/she wants, and the non-law-abiding can get a steak knife... if they steal it from Applebee's.
So how do we get there? Or, more realistically, how do we get as close to there as possible?
It was in that spirit that I started this.
--Shannon
If you cannot trust someone with a ballot or a bullet, why did you let them out of prison?
Done the time? Then you've repaid the crime, and you should have all of your rights back. If the term of sentence was too short to make that certain, then that's a sentencing issue, not an issue of the individual.
None of which is relevant to the original question I posed:
If some restrictions on private sales are inevitable (and I think that's true), what would we want our legislators to agree to?
If the issue is really about the buyers, (we know that it isn't) then providing private sellers access to the NICS database would close the loophole.
If the goal is actually to make it as difficult as possible to purchase a firearm, so that very few will do it, leaving people who care about this at all in the minority, (which is really what the Bradys want), then at least we can flush them out into the open by proposing our own standards that will do what they say they want to do.
You cannot stop a liar from lying, but you can make it very obvious that that's what they are doing. One of the biggest problem we've had with the antis is that their framing sounds so reasonable. "We're just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands." And who could disagree with that? What they do not say is that "the wrong hands" is any hands other than those of the military and the police. But, that's not what most Americans think of when they think of "the wrong hands".
We need to advocate for policies that truly "keep guns out of the wrong hands." But we need to be clear whose hands are "the wrong hands." For the Bradys, the answer is clear. Your hands are the wrong hands, although they won't actually say that.
We need a definition, and a set of policies that go along with it, that define what "the wrong hands" are.
That was what I was proposing. Clearly, I don't have the final answer. So I'm looking for solutions.
We all know where we want to be. A place where the law-abiding citizen can get any gun he/she wants, and the non-law-abiding can get a steak knife... if they steal it from Applebee's.
So how do we get there? Or, more realistically, how do we get as close to there as possible?
It was in that spirit that I started this.
--Shannon
zminer
Member
I started a thread on this topic a while back. There were some interesting discussions in the thread. Check it out:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=406643
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=406643
tube_ee:
The basic problem is that the legislators and others behind the "close the gun show loophole" movement do not want to be reasonable in the sense that you advocate. What they want is to force all private sales (just starting with gun shows) under the FFL umbrella so that transfers of any kind are recorded on a #4473 form. Thereafter it may take years, but ultimately they will have the ability to create a de facto system of national registration. Without such a system their dream of control and confiscation cannot come about because in this country relatively few firearms are currently registered.
In addition they hope to include enough red tape and liability clauses in any loophole bill to be able to force gun show promoters out of business. One reason is that they know that organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) often set up tables to sign up new members and collect funds. Pro gun-rights politicians also are able to get names on nominating petitions, hand out literature, and get donations to their campaign funds. All of this grass-roots activity has often frustrated the gun control movement, and in particular one of our two major political parties. Both would like to eliminate the roadblock to their goals that gun shows represent.
While I am sure that you are sincere in making the proposals you have put forward, they are – at least in my opinion – naive, and I have been actively fighting this war through good times an bad since before 1968. Trying to find some reasonable ground to form some sort of compromise with the gun control movement won’t work. They’re idea of compromise is a discussion about how much are we willing to give up. You won’t see any talk of concessions coming from their side, and no legislation is inevitable unless we simply give up.
The basic problem is that the legislators and others behind the "close the gun show loophole" movement do not want to be reasonable in the sense that you advocate. What they want is to force all private sales (just starting with gun shows) under the FFL umbrella so that transfers of any kind are recorded on a #4473 form. Thereafter it may take years, but ultimately they will have the ability to create a de facto system of national registration. Without such a system their dream of control and confiscation cannot come about because in this country relatively few firearms are currently registered.
In addition they hope to include enough red tape and liability clauses in any loophole bill to be able to force gun show promoters out of business. One reason is that they know that organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) often set up tables to sign up new members and collect funds. Pro gun-rights politicians also are able to get names on nominating petitions, hand out literature, and get donations to their campaign funds. All of this grass-roots activity has often frustrated the gun control movement, and in particular one of our two major political parties. Both would like to eliminate the roadblock to their goals that gun shows represent.
While I am sure that you are sincere in making the proposals you have put forward, they are – at least in my opinion – naive, and I have been actively fighting this war through good times an bad since before 1968. Trying to find some reasonable ground to form some sort of compromise with the gun control movement won’t work. They’re idea of compromise is a discussion about how much are we willing to give up. You won’t see any talk of concessions coming from their side, and no legislation is inevitable unless we simply give up.
RoadkingLarry
Member
Tube ee said -
I want the least restrictive regime that can be set up.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
-Samuel Adams
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Grey54956 said:I do agree that people convicted of non-violent crimes should have their liberty fully reinstated after doing their time. Felonies should largely be confined to violent crime, gross abuse, and other physically damaging crimes.
See? We're not that far apart. Somewhere in between anarchy and the absurd is the answer.
Since Congress came up with the plan to question all of us so it won't have to keep violent criminals locked up, it can find a way to keep the violent criminals locked up and free us of the infringements. The Court can decide who meets whatever standards Congress sets to determine who is safe to be allowed back into/upon society. That's why these people get elected/appointed. It's their job to do it right(constitutionally) and not burden the rest of us as a result of their incompetence.
Woody
waterhouse
Member
So how do you know Joe Sixpack is really Joe Sixpack?
How do you know he is ID is for real?
To be honest, as a dealer, you can't. The ATF requires that someone have a valid proof of ID, but it isn't like they send us to school to learn how to check for fake IDs or real IDs being used by someone who looks similar.
As for the OPs suggestion, I dislike it. Basically you would be giving everyone a pass into a sometimes flawed criminal database. For everyone that has ever been mistakenly denied a gun purchase through a NICS check, it is terrible, but there is an appeal system in place to attempt to right the wrong.
There is no appeal system in place for you if your boss checks the NICS system and gets an erroneous hit on you and decides to fire you, or not hire you, for that reason.
It would be an easy way to check out potential girlfriends, room mates, people you work with and so on.
If they cant buy a gun and they are old enough then they did some thing pretty bad.
People who have done nothing wrong have gotten delayed and denied by the NICS system. After some work and time, they are cleared. A delay or denial does not mean someone has done something pretty bad, but that would be the implication throughout society if everyone had access to the NICS system and was checking up on everyone they knew.
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Absolutely its a good idea. But they don't want rational - they want to shut down gun shows completely - that's how their bills are worded - they would have that effect, but introducing extreme liability to the promoters.
If the anti-freedom forces would simply stop being disingenuous by claiming that there even exists a "gun show loophole", and instead talk about their perceived need to close the "private party transfer loophole", which does indeed exist (in some states), then we could have a rational discussion and debate about that. But they don't want to enter that debate because their goal is to end gun shows, to damage our CULTURE. In my opinion. Even though nowadays it wouldn't be a huge loss, considering how bad gun shows are now.
If the anti-freedom forces would simply stop being disingenuous by claiming that there even exists a "gun show loophole", and instead talk about their perceived need to close the "private party transfer loophole", which does indeed exist (in some states), then we could have a rational discussion and debate about that. But they don't want to enter that debate because their goal is to end gun shows, to damage our CULTURE. In my opinion. Even though nowadays it wouldn't be a huge loss, considering how bad gun shows are now.
The problems with NICS for private gun sales (or FFL sales for that matter)...
If you don't want people to buy guns you can just stop funding it and pull the plug, but leave the "it's a felony to sell a gun w/o NICS" in the law, and you've just shut down all legal purchasing of a gun.
BoR says "right to keep and bear" says nothing about "right to buy" therefore the SCOTUS says it passes the sniff test.
Somehow congress seems to think they have this power under the constitution under the interstate commerce clause and FDR's court upheld it, now we're stuck with it.
"NO" TO NICS!!!!
Just like the "felons can get their RKBA back", but then they don't fund it, ergo felons CAN'T get the RKBA back... see where this is going?
If you don't want people to buy guns you can just stop funding it and pull the plug, but leave the "it's a felony to sell a gun w/o NICS" in the law, and you've just shut down all legal purchasing of a gun.
BoR says "right to keep and bear" says nothing about "right to buy" therefore the SCOTUS says it passes the sniff test.
Somehow congress seems to think they have this power under the constitution under the interstate commerce clause and FDR's court upheld it, now we're stuck with it.
"NO" TO NICS!!!!
Just like the "felons can get their RKBA back", but then they don't fund it, ergo felons CAN'T get the RKBA back... see where this is going?
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 445