Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"So when we pass universal background checks, assault weapons bans, magazine limits, etc. and the next wacko goes out and shoots a bunch of people.... then what? These kind of laws are proposed in the context of preventing mass shootings, so when none of them stop the next one, it stands to reason that we'll be having this discussion again..... and again.... and again..... until there's nothing left."
Truly hard to believe this argument, but not altogether uncommon!
First, you do all you can to do whatever you can, or if not have DAMN good reason not to make the effort. Then, when needless to say another incident may occur, you can consider what could have been done that isn't being done, like we do in the case of so many other examples.
For example, the incredible effort devoted to aviation safety is to prevent another plane from failing, crashing and killing people. So what do we do? We learn from every incident and implement whatever additional new measures might help to prevent the next one. Does anyone think of doing otherwise simply because there is all likelihood another plane crash will occur? Of course not! We do what we can, so that maybe even if we can't prevent ALL planes from crashing, we can prevent some, maybe even just one.
Lots of similar examples when it comes to preventing drug addiction, crime, child abuse, etc., etc.
There is no way to achieve 100 percent success in preventing any of these problems from happening, but most reasonable people agree all that can reasonably be done should be done.
Again, if I can continue to do my gun thing as a law abiding gun enthusiast, why stand in the way of what others want to do in the way of stopping guns from going to those who should not have access? Whether the laws are full proof or not, I so we need to get to a point where gun enthusiasts can do their thing and gun control advocates have nothing more to advocate.
"I actually have no problem with expanding BGC's to gun shows and internet sales. I have a gun for sale on the internet right now and I made it clear in the description that I wouldn't sell to anyone without doing the transfer through and FFL even though I am not required to....."
I thought you could not "just buy a gun on the Internet."
"Is it reasonable to conclude that Hillary would only tighten the laws to the point that they are "Constitutionally sound"... when she doesn't even acknowledge the Constitutional right to begin with? That's my point."
Point understood, but regardless of Hillary's views on gun control or the Constitution, the issue of falling short of sensible, reasonable gun control laws remains. Don't want to repeat myself too much here, but it seems pretty simple to me. Do all we can that allows gun enthusiasts to continue to have their gun fun, stay within the protections of the Constitution, and simply remove the rest that gun control advocates advocate for.
"Just do it," as they say!
Oh, but then there is the NRA and the money they funnel to those who would otherwise legislate accordingly...
"I actually have no problem with expanding BGC's to gun shows and internet sales. I have a gun for sale on the internet right now and I made it clear in the description that I wouldn't sell to anyone without doing the transfer through and FFL even though I am not required to....."
I thought you could not "just buy a gun on the Internet."
You can't ship a gun to someone who doesn't have a FFL.
"I actually have no problem with expanding BGC's to gun shows and internet sales. I have a gun for sale on the internet right now and I made it clear in the description that I wouldn't sell to anyone without doing the transfer through and FFL even though I am not required to....."
I thought you could not "just buy a gun on the Internet."
Your not selling it thru the Internet your advertising it on the Internet.
If you had a business On the Internet where you actually sold guns to people thru your web site regularly for a profit then you would need to be a licensed FFL and what ever gun the buyer wanted would be shipped to an FFL in their state for proper paperwork to be completed by you. The recieving FFL would charge you a fee for such a service.
Again here in Kommiefornia until the late 80's I used to be able to advertise guns for sale in the local classifieds meet people in parking lots and complete the sale just like buying a lawn mower. This was before the idiots in Sacramento changed the law which required all private party transactions (idiot gun grabbers call this the gun show loop hole in states that still don't require an FFL) to go to an FFL for the transaction.
I agree that they are not as "free" in terms of gun ownership, however, I am not sure that I equate gun ownership with how you rate "freedom". I guess it all depends on how you quantify freedom itself.
More restriction = Less Freddom. Its that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14
Free speech is just as protected, and you should know that much of America's constitution, and certainly the bill of rights was lifted from British systems, ideology and law. The English Bill of Rights predates the US Bill of Rights by nearly 100 years.
Nowhere is speech protected as highly as it is in the US. That is a true fact.
Yes, of course I know that the US borrowed heavily from the Brits and from Western thinkers re human rights and government. In fact, the American Revolution is a misnomer for the war that freed us from British rule. The Founding Fathers were quite conservative. All they wanted was the rights they believed they were supposed to have by virtue of being Englishmen. From that perspective, there was nothing revolutionary about that war. The American patriots were simply demanding and taking for themselves what they believed every Englishman was entitled to have.
That said, the US went on to become the most free nation on the planet, and despite the ever increasing tyranny of the Federal Government, as of today, the US is still freer than Europe. Liberals would like to change that. But, we are still free, at least for today.
Another Incel Shoots up College, 10 Dead, 7 Wounded
4Chan Subculture and the post on R9K predicting the shooting
Beta Uprising
How America’s hyper individualism and atomization leads to mass shootings
The Oregon School Shooter and Asperger’s
Misanthropy
Depression and Suicide
Homicidal Fantasies
Study: Males and Females Differ in How They Rate the Attractiveness of the Opposite Sex
What Is This Man Doing Wrong?(Why hasn’t Game Worked?)
Again, if I can continue to do my gun thing as a law abiding gun enthusiast, why stand in the way of what others want to do in the way of stopping guns from going to those who should not have access? Whether the laws are full proof or not, I so we need to get to a point where gun enthusiasts can do their thing and gun control advocates have nothing more to advocate.
So what does that look like? I think a fair question that every gun control advocate should be asked is, where is the balance? At what point do we get to where we all agree that nothing more can be done to prevent gun violence because going further would violate Constitutional protections? What's that point?
Frankly, from a gun control perspective, that point is total disarmament, because frankly, most gun control advocates do not even recognize or respect gun ownership to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
I thought you could not "just buy a gun on the Internet."
It won't be sold over the internet. It will be sold in person, face to face. I simply listed the gun for sale on the internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by And D
"Is it reasonable to conclude that Hillary would only tighten the laws to the point that they are "Constitutionally sound"... when she doesn't even acknowledge the Constitutional right to begin with? That's my point."
Point understood, but regardless of Hillary's views on gun control or the Constitution, the issue of falling short of sensible, reasonable gun control laws remains. Don't want to repeat myself too much here, but it seems pretty simple to me. Do all we can that allows gun enthusiasts to continue to have their gun fun, stay within the protections of the Constitution, and simply remove the rest that gun control advocates advocate for.
"Just do it," as they say!
Oh, but then there is the NRA and the money they funnel to those who would otherwise legislate accordingly...
If only it worked that way, but it doesn't... One thing Clinton advocates is closing what has been coined "the Charleston loophole" which is a defect in the law that allows for gun purchases to proceed after 3 days, whether the check is complete or not...
I like that idea. I have no problem with it. But Clinton also supports banning "assault weapons", ,magazine limits, and repealing laws that protect the gun industry from frivolous lawsuits designed to bankrupt them...
I can't support Clinton for her good idea of closing that loophole without also supporting all her other wacky proposals by default. As I said, I'd rather side with a gun rights absolutist than someone like Clinton.
One of the big problems is that there are no sane, pro-gun, pro-reform groups out there. It's either one extreme or the other.
"So when we pass universal background checks, assault weapons bans, magazine limits, etc. and the next wacko goes out and shoots a bunch of people.... then what? These kind of laws are proposed in the context of preventing mass shootings, so when none of them stop the next one, it stands to reason that we'll be having this discussion again..... and again.... and again..... until there's nothing left."
Truly hard to believe this argument, but not altogether uncommon!
First, you do all you can to do whatever you can, or if not have DAMN good reason not to make the effort. Then, when needless to say another incident may occur, you can consider what could have been done that isn't being done, like we do in the case of so many other examples.
The conservative logic prevalent on this forum is that because this would be hard, or not a 100% perfect and fail-safe solution, that it's not worth even trying to come to grips with gun violence in our country.
We beat fascism and put a man on the moon in this last century, but for the conservatives, making Americans at least somewhat safer from gun violence is just a bridge too far. Not exactly a very patriotic line of thinking, is it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
