hogshead
Member
Issac you sound like should marry Fienstien.
Sound Good Gun Laws you would support?
- Thread starter Isaac-1
- Start date
- Status
Isaac-1
Member
How?
I suggested 2 things, proof of basic level of firearms safety trainning that ANYONE should be able to pass.
Allowing voluntary access to the NICS background check system by private sellers.
How does either of those infringe on your 2a rights?, at most the first one would take a little over 1 hour or your time on first gun purchase if you had not previously had some type of safe gun handling training, and the second one is up to the private seller. Nothing is forcing that private seller to sell to you in the first place, this is an optional condition they could place on the sale.
I suggested 2 things, proof of basic level of firearms safety trainning that ANYONE should be able to pass.
Allowing voluntary access to the NICS background check system by private sellers.
How does either of those infringe on your 2a rights?, at most the first one would take a little over 1 hour or your time on first gun purchase if you had not previously had some type of safe gun handling training, and the second one is up to the private seller. Nothing is forcing that private seller to sell to you in the first place, this is an optional condition they could place on the sale.
Isaac-1....If we throw them a bone (which is what you're suggesting) then they'll only try to take a little more (chip away) the next time there's a shooting. You have to know their agenda.
Remember this: They will NEVER be satisfied! Not until we are totally disarmed.
Remember this: They will NEVER be satisfied! Not until we are totally disarmed.
hogshead
Member
Im gonna type real slow so you can understand. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Lupinus
Member
Requiring training is an infringement. Who defines what is reasonable? "Oh sorry, you just aren't accurate enough." "Sorry, you just aren't getting this fast enough." Hell NO.
Opening NICS to a private transaction? For one, you can already do that for a nominal fee at a gun shop or ask to see a CWP. For two, NICS itself is stupid and inherently flawed.
Opening NICS to a private transaction? For one, you can already do that for a nominal fee at a gun shop or ask to see a CWP. For two, NICS itself is stupid and inherently flawed.
Isaac-1
Member
This is getting to the point of repeating myself, there is no bone throwing, not compromise, passing these would not be a win for the anti's, if anything it would be a diversion, or a side step, they gain nothing, I am just looking at things our side can put on the table to make us look proactive.
Note I agree NICS is stupid and flawed, but what harm is there in letting private sellers access it? This action could potentially partly defang those calling for all transactions to go through FFL's
This is not a training requirement, this is must watch a video and ability to answer a few questions to prove you watched it, not can you score 99+ on a possible 100 point test, as one of multiple ways you can prove you have been exposed to the concepts of safe gun handling.
Note I agree NICS is stupid and flawed, but what harm is there in letting private sellers access it? This action could potentially partly defang those calling for all transactions to go through FFL's
This is not a training requirement, this is must watch a video and ability to answer a few questions to prove you watched it, not can you score 99+ on a possible 100 point test, as one of multiple ways you can prove you have been exposed to the concepts of safe gun handling.
Tim the student
Member
No.
Lupinus
Member
You are proposing we open the door to requiring training, and say they get nothing?
Are you kidding me?
And if you agree NICS is stupid why on Earth are you proposing expanding it?
morcey2
Member
By "looking proactive", you're accepting the debate on their terms and upon there premise. You just don't seem to be understanding that. It's the old "Have you stopped beating your wife?" situation and your answer is "sort of." The only real answer is refusing to accept the premise and walking away.
Matt
Isaac-1
Member
We are about 45 years too late for accepting the fight on their grounds, it is on their grounds now, in time we can try to move away from that, but this is reallity
Lupinus
Member
Oh for crying out loud.
Will you stop pissing yourself already? Ever consider that's how we've gotten to this point?
Will you stop pissing yourself already? Ever consider that's how we've gotten to this point?
JVaughn
Member
That's it right there, +1
22-rimfire
Member
Feinstein and the President are going for the meat.... as the Pres says... once and for all... no body has mentioned mandatory training in these bills yet. Voluntary NICs check would be useful if it were free, otherwise, just go through a FFL dealer and pay your money for a transfer.
I generally don't like words like mandatory and I certainly don't like making magazines illegal to own (as in NY) or military style rifles (being registered by the State Police; that is what Maryland does.) More red tape.... more expense, more time... it gets old and it does not solve the real problem of crime. There is no solution to solving this problem.
In the inner city, if you gave each person a million dollars, many would be trying to rob each other to get some of what the other guy has. That's crime. No gun law is going to stop the kinds of things that go on in parts of Chicago or in certain areas of my city.
I generally don't like words like mandatory and I certainly don't like making magazines illegal to own (as in NY) or military style rifles (being registered by the State Police; that is what Maryland does.) More red tape.... more expense, more time... it gets old and it does not solve the real problem of crime. There is no solution to solving this problem.
In the inner city, if you gave each person a million dollars, many would be trying to rob each other to get some of what the other guy has. That's crime. No gun law is going to stop the kinds of things that go on in parts of Chicago or in certain areas of my city.
You know it's quite telling when people supposedly on our side are advocating for greater restrictions than what Obama announced today.
Same kind of people, should there be a ban and confiscation effort, would be calling in and dropping dimes on their neighbors for "illegal gun possession"
Same kind of people, should there be a ban and confiscation effort, would be calling in and dropping dimes on their neighbors for "illegal gun possession"
I wish there was a way to work with "the other side" to help reduce violence in our country and make schools and other places safer, but they are not willing to work with us.
The only thing that would please them would be if we were to give up all of our firearms, no matter how rediculous that might be. Feinstein admitted before that this is her goal.
Doesn't matter that it makes no sense at all.
Doesn't matter that people all over the country would be unable to defend themselves from criminals.
Doesn't matter that wildlife populations would no longer be adequately managed.
Doesn't matter that people in Montana or Alaska would still have to deal with large, hungry, aggressive animals that would try to harm them.
None of that matters to them. I wish I could work with some of them, but as long as they're stuck on their current path, a path that has been proven not to work, that's impossible.
The only thing that would please them would be if we were to give up all of our firearms, no matter how rediculous that might be. Feinstein admitted before that this is her goal.
Doesn't matter that it makes no sense at all.
Doesn't matter that people all over the country would be unable to defend themselves from criminals.
Doesn't matter that wildlife populations would no longer be adequately managed.
Doesn't matter that people in Montana or Alaska would still have to deal with large, hungry, aggressive animals that would try to harm them.
None of that matters to them. I wish I could work with some of them, but as long as they're stuck on their current path, a path that has been proven not to work, that's impossible.
Can the dope dealers call your 800 number and run this back ground check? I bet they will comply.
I didn't read all umpteen replies.
The gun law that I support is called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Anything else is an infringement!!
I didn't read all umpteen replies.
The gun law that I support is called the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Anything else is an infringement!!
ZeSpectre
Member
Still the "Red Herring" arguments.
Every argument here starts from the premise that some sort of laws aimed at guns are going to address the issue(s) of societal violence.
Nope.
You want to work on something that might have a snowball's chance in hell of a positive outcome, then start working on how we're going to control the criminals.
Restrictions on law abiding - Nope, they haven't done anything.
Mandatory sentencing for those found guilty of crimes committed with weapons - YUP (see, it's aimed at the CRIMINALS)
Restrictive storage laws - nope
Mandatory imprisonment for those convicted of any type of home invasion - YUP.
etc. etc.
I can already hear the "but how are we going to prevent people from getting hurt?" Answer, we can't. Freedom isn't exactly safe. But if you want "nanny state safety" there are PLENTY of other countries you can move to.
Every argument here starts from the premise that some sort of laws aimed at guns are going to address the issue(s) of societal violence.
Nope.
You want to work on something that might have a snowball's chance in hell of a positive outcome, then start working on how we're going to control the criminals.
Restrictions on law abiding - Nope, they haven't done anything.
Mandatory sentencing for those found guilty of crimes committed with weapons - YUP (see, it's aimed at the CRIMINALS)
Restrictive storage laws - nope
Mandatory imprisonment for those convicted of any type of home invasion - YUP.
etc. etc.
I can already hear the "but how are we going to prevent people from getting hurt?" Answer, we can't. Freedom isn't exactly safe. But if you want "nanny state safety" there are PLENTY of other countries you can move to.
Isaac-1
Member
Sure dope dealers, or anyone else could all you have to have is a persons name and their SSN or list of personal details, that is the point of it being voluntary. The point being the data is there now, NICS exists, setting up a free hotline that anyone could call without having to identify themselves or a web interface has no downside to the law abiding people. It may slow down the flow of guns from legal gun owners to criminals. About the only one that could complain is the person that is not allowed to own a gun, but that is little different from the current condition.
If you read through I have said over and over again, I don't expect any gun law to help the situation, I just see these as ones the pro 2A side can use to look proactive to the general public, and possible defang some of the anti's main points.
If you read through I have said over and over again, I don't expect any gun law to help the situation, I just see these as ones the pro 2A side can use to look proactive to the general public, and possible defang some of the anti's main points.
Lupinus
Member
Ah yes. There it is. "There's no risk to law abiding people so why be worried?"
ZeSpectre
Member
You mean other than having to pay for a system to confirm that I haven't done anything to be punished over?
If I'm going to have to pay tax money, I'd rather it went towards something that dealt with the guilty not screwed with the innocent.
How would that work? Especially since the primary method of obtaining a gun for a crime is...crime (namely stealing the firearm).
Isaac: I take your endeavor to offer something constructive and meaningful to the issue by way of a reasonable gun law with the respect you obviously intend. I respectfully submit to you that while your intent is noble, there is no real reason to create new gun laws.
I also want you to know I find your suggestion in NO WAY "insulting" or "offensive."
Thanks for being well-intentioned and trying to be constructive. You're obviously a good egg.
I also want you to know I find your suggestion in NO WAY "insulting" or "offensive."
Thanks for being well-intentioned and trying to be constructive. You're obviously a good egg.
" I am just looking at things our side can put on the table to make us look proactive."
By us appearing to be "Proactive" is an admission by us that our guns are the problem when the guns are Not the problem.
Don't you understand that all the while they've been saying "These assault weapons of mass destruction are the reason why our children are dying," we've been trying to convince the people that they've been brainwashed into thinking this rubbish is the truth, so if we put anything "on the table," it will be a total contradiction on our part.
I will not "plea bargain" for a lesser charge to hopefully avoid getting sent up the river, when I'm totally innocent.
By us appearing to be "Proactive" is an admission by us that our guns are the problem when the guns are Not the problem.
Don't you understand that all the while they've been saying "These assault weapons of mass destruction are the reason why our children are dying," we've been trying to convince the people that they've been brainwashed into thinking this rubbish is the truth, so if we put anything "on the table," it will be a total contradiction on our part.
I will not "plea bargain" for a lesser charge to hopefully avoid getting sent up the river, when I'm totally innocent.
Isaac-1
Member
Government wasteful spending is a valid issue, but I can't imagine that this sort of system would cost much to implement, just a small drop in the bucket and one I would be willing to pay to keep private party sales with no legal requirement for background checks.
I did not say stop the flow, but many guns are purchased through private party sales by those that can't legally buy them now, the disquallifier may be any number of things, some criminal some not, remember not all criminals are the same. Some guy with a history of violence is not the same as burglar.
I did not say stop the flow, but many guns are purchased through private party sales by those that can't legally buy them now, the disquallifier may be any number of things, some criminal some not, remember not all criminals are the same. Some guy with a history of violence is not the same as burglar.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
