wagdog
Ack
You don't have a natural right to defend yourself?
OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
Silencers are to overlooked accessory of the zombie apocalypse. I would make many now in preparation, they'll be as good as gold to those that have guns...not nearly as much as bullets...stock up on those fuckers too!
Flamencology
You don't deserve koa.
I do. Just not with a gun.
sunvalleylaw
Yep.
Interesting article.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ology-problem-george-monbiot?CMP=share_btn_fb
A quote from the article that summarizes what my early adulthood views were: "Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom."
But I now believe that while the market works in areas where there are a good number of choices, and where one can choose not to purchase at all, in many markets it does not work. (health care, utilities, education, etc.) And when we simply transfer the unaccounted for environmental costs to another country (China) we do not solve environmental issues, and harm our own workers. I don't mean that I now completely accept all Keynesian views, but something has to change.
After this whole UK thing, I really think we need to work to defeat Trump. He could somehow surf this weird wave into office, which could be devastating wrt SCOTUS alone. But long run, I think we need to address the concepts in this article. A pure return to Keynes isn't it I don't suppose. But something has to be done.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ology-problem-george-monbiot?CMP=share_btn_fb
A quote from the article that summarizes what my early adulthood views were: "Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom."
But I now believe that while the market works in areas where there are a good number of choices, and where one can choose not to purchase at all, in many markets it does not work. (health care, utilities, education, etc.) And when we simply transfer the unaccounted for environmental costs to another country (China) we do not solve environmental issues, and harm our own workers. I don't mean that I now completely accept all Keynesian views, but something has to change.
After this whole UK thing, I really think we need to work to defeat Trump. He could somehow surf this weird wave into office, which could be devastating wrt SCOTUS alone. But long run, I think we need to address the concepts in this article. A pure return to Keynes isn't it I don't suppose. But something has to be done.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
The global numbers wholly disprove this notion. Every country that has stricter guns laws across the board has not marginally less but a huge amount less OR out NONE of the gun death issues we have. You don't have to like the numbers, but they are clean data, not from polls or extrapolated from small samples of the population. These are real numbers based on real activity or inactivity related to gun violence. We're not just the world leader in violent gun deaths (regardless of whether other causes of violent are higher) we are so far ahead that our numbers are higher than most of all of the other countries combined...barring (I assume) those at war which is a completely different situation.
Unrelated to your post, I still can't believe we didn't do a damned thing after 20 kids were killed.
Here's how I stand unadulterated:
No guns.
But if they are to be allowed, then:
Every seller, buyer, and owner needs to be registered, including every gun they own and all of the ammo they buy and/or own. Full background checks on every and any gun buyer prior to full psychiatric evaluation of each potential owner with re-evaluation every five years. I don't care how long it takes, as long as it's thorough. NO assault style weapons for anyone other than military and law enforcement personnel and only for use on the job. Limit the number of guns per person to something like...one. I don't care if it's a rifle or a handgun, pick your poison.
Had to get that shit off my chest. And I'll add that I wish the New Guns day thread would disappear, but that is not a formal complaint or request. But what I'll do is not talk about it again and let it go.
You're all a bunch of swell folks. I appreciate our ability to agree to disagree.
Dogsinplastic
avuncular to no one
Bullets run out, swords are forever
I love swords. Samurai and ninja katanas are super cool.
You are simply wrong. In most states, only federally licensed gun dealers are required to do background checks. Anyone else can sell guns at a gun show with no background check. And you don't have to have a license if you claim that selling guns is not the majority of your livelihood. Note that the limit for requiring a federal license used to be selling less than four guns per year, but in 1986 the NRA's lapdogs passed a law that removed that limit.
If there are no loopholes, why does the NRA go ape shit every time some introduces a bill to require background checks on ALL gun sales?
Your arguments about gun laws parallel the arguments that auto manufacturers made in the 50s and 60s when they did not want to include safety features in cars: Seat belts won't fix the problem. We can't eliminate car crashes. Even with seat belts, people are still going to die. Cars don't kill people, bad drivers do. Why inconvenience good drivers with the cost of seat belts?
And on and on. And not just seat belts. Car manufacturers fought all car safety features - at least up until the point that they realized that people realized they actually worked and started paying more for them.
Research what George Washington thought about the average Joe with a weapon as an effective fighter.
They do have statistics for mass shootings. If you look here: https://everytownresearch.org/reports/mass-shootings-analysis/ you'll see that from January 2009 to July 2015 when assault rifles were used in mass shootings, each incident resulted in 155% more people shot, and 47% more people killed.
When you throw in Orlando, those numbers are going to go up even higher.
While I agree that when looking at murders in general, handguns swamp the statistics. Single murders and mass shootings are two very different crimes, and each needs handled separately.
Aahzz
Habanero Evangelist
Blatantly false. Directly from the ATF "The federal Gun Control Act (GCA) requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)." Further. "As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed. "
https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download
If it's a business for you, you need the license. The only people that don't need licenses are people selling their personally owned firearms. And, in spite of the misinformation constantly spewed by much of the media, if you're in the business at gun shows, you need a license, therefore you need to do the background checks.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Fine, call it the "private sale loophole". But, these are the facts...
1. Absolutely no background checks are performed
2. These sales constitute somewhere between 20-30% of all gun transactions
3. These transactions occur frequently, perhaps predominantly, at gun shows.
4. One can absolutely set up a table and sell guns at a gun show without a license and without performing background checks. It happens all the time.
1. Absolutely no background checks are performed
2. These sales constitute somewhere between 20-30% of all gun transactions
3. These transactions occur frequently, perhaps predominantly, at gun shows.
4. One can absolutely set up a table and sell guns at a gun show without a license and without performing background checks. It happens all the time.
Sorry, but the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 essentially gutted the gun control act.
The current law allows the following loopholes:
1. If you sell only at gun shows, you cannot get a federal gun dealer license, thus no background checks.
2. If you state that your primary business is not selling guns, you don't have to get a federal license, thus no background check.
3. Even if you have a federal license, you can exempt a sale from a background check by claiming that it is a personal weapon. No limits on how many "personal weapons" sold in a year.
Again, if there isn't a loophole, why does the NRA go ape shit every time a bill is introduced to require background checks on all gun sales?
Beyer160
Vagabond Of The Western World
And he was absolutely right- Washington was trained as a British officer, and as British style, "stand in neat orderly rows and shoot at the enemy as they shoot at you" style soldiers, the colonists were hopeless. They were undisciplined, tended to want to hide behind stuff when the British were shooting at them, and their weapons generally didn't have attachment for bayonets, which were just as important as the musket they were attached to in European military tactics of the day. Instead of doing close order drill and learning to spit and polish their equipment, the colonists had learned how to fight in the French and Indian wars.
Earl Percy, who led the relief column to rescue the British troops being swarmed to death by the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, wrote this:
"During the whole affair the Rebels attacked us in a very scattered, irregular manner, but with perseverance & resolution, nor did they ever dare to form into any regular body. Indeed, they knew too well what was proper, to do so. Whoever looks upon them as an irregular mob, will find himself much mistaken. They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about, having been employed as Rangers against the Indians & Canadians, & this country being much covered with wood, and hilly, is very advantageous for their method of fighting."
Percy, it should be noted, lost a critical ammunition column to a small band of militiamen who were all over 60 years old.
There would have been no Revolutionary War without armed individual citizens, and the founders were well aware of this. The Second Amendment reflects this.
Aahzz
Habanero Evangelist
I showed you the exact government documentation on who needs an FFL. If you choose to ignore that, it's your right. As for FOPA, here it is (spoiler, it matches what the ATF document I quoted says):
1. devotion of time, attention and labor to such dealing;
2. as a regular course of trade or business;
3. with the principal objective of livelihood and profit;
4. through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.
So, you have to put time into it, as a business, with the objective of profit, through purchase and resale. It does NOT say it must be your primary source of livelihood, it says an objective of livelihood and profit - which merely means it's part of your livelihood.
As for why we go nuts, it's because you're telling me that I cannot sell my private personally owned property without government permission.
Chad
Slender Hobbit
InVirginia, you only need to provide a drivers license and utility bill at a gun show to purchase a gun. For assault rifles, which Virginia says any semi auto weapon that holds 20 or more rounds, you need to also show proof of citizenship, like a passport, birth certificate or naturalization papers. And that is it, no background check at all.
That is for Virginia residents. North Carolina and Maryland residents have to show their state required permits but again, no background check. Virginia is one of the easiest state to get a firearm legally. At one point, something like 90% of all crimes committed on the east coast where a firearm was used, it was purchased inVa. They passed laws to stop that but MacDonell got rid of them.
That is for Virginia residents. North Carolina and Maryland residents have to show their state required permits but again, no background check. Virginia is one of the easiest state to get a firearm legally. At one point, something like 90% of all crimes committed on the east coast where a firearm was used, it was purchased inVa. They passed laws to stop that but MacDonell got rid of them.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
Actually, background checks restrict who can purchase. They have no relation to who can sell. As for "why we go nuts"...There surely are deeper underlying causes for that.
Aahzz
Habanero Evangelist
False.
"The purchaser’s name and certain personal descriptive data are immediately entered into a computer system at the dealer location or while the dealer remains on the telephone with the FTC. The design of this program eliminates traditional waiting periods by electronically accessing criminal records and "wanted" databases at the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Virginia Criminal Records Exchange (CCRE) and provides an instantaneous approval or delay determination to the firearms dealer concerning the firearms sale or transfer."
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_VFTP.shtm
- Status