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.
Don't post jokes this late at night, please. I almost woke up my children with the guffaw that I let loose when I read this.
Now that I'm past the initial surge of humor, let me see if I understand your point: Straw purchasers, who are already breaking a law that is not enforced because according to VP Biden "we can't afford to enforce current laws" are going to be intimidated into not being straw purchasers because of a new law that we will more than likely not be able to afford to enforce.
Right back at cha' I was nearly in tears from laughing so hard at this post.
Biden's statement was directed at persecuting everyone whom are non-qualifiers to own a gun that get a background check. It has NOTHING to do with straw buyers.
To extend background checks to what? As far as I know the only prohibitions on obtaining a firearm are if you have a felony, convictions for domestic violence, or the mental health prohibition. Why would a person who is not a criminal or meet those prohibitions have any problem obtaining a gun?
My apologies. The first sentence should have read "The UBC bill, iirc, included a provision to extend the waiting period for purchasing a firearm." Now that we've cleared up that misunderstanding, please tell us why you would support limiting an individual's ability to defend themselves or their family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline
Actually JimRom, your analysis displays the faulty thinking and here's why:
You say that murder and child molestation are illegal, but you forget to state why. They were deemed illegal because sometime in the past, those laws were rightfully not filibustered by an insane minority of people who used some ridiculous constitutional argument that their "pursuit of happiness" was being infringed. My argument is that allowing crazies and criminals to buy lethal weapons should also be illegal for the same reason: putting guns in the hands of criminals and the insane infringes on everybody's constitutional right to live freely without fear of getting shot for no reason whatsoever.
Interesting how you redefined "crazies and criminals" to just "individuals" in your rebuttal. I'm not referring to regular folks who want to buy a gun. You are the one comparing apples to bananas, my friend.
If you are sane and not a criminal, your rights are perfectly intact.
No, I stated why those acts are illegal quite plainly. They are illegal because they cause direct harm to other people. You and I actually agree that "criminals and crazies" should not be allowed access to firearms. The difference is in how we look for the solution. Your solution involves creating legislation that affects every single individual who owns or wishes to own a firearm. My solution is to put the "criminals and crazies" in a place where they won't have access to firearms. It makes far more sense to aim any solution to the problem of violence at the ones who are actually committing violent acts than it does to aim the supposed solution at the tools that are used to commit violence.
Maybe you're focusing only on a sub-section of domestic violence, but I prefer to stick to reality. If you actually click on some of those female figures, you will see that each one takes you to the source on that murder, a local news report that has nothing to do with Slate. The most dangerous time for the victim of domestic violence is when he or she is indicating that they are planning to leave. Unfortunately they are usually still in the home at that time, and that's how they end up murdered.
I never suggested that a female victim of domestic violence should arm herself whilst actually residing with her aggressor--again, I'm referring to murder victims who have been slain by former partners following estrangement, not during cohabitation (and last I checked, estrangement between partners--read that again, ellemint: e-s-t-r-a-n-g-e-m-e-n-t--as the result of domestic violence is indeed a reality, as well as the aggressor's pursuit of her afterward).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
I never said that it was more dangerous for a woman who has left her abuser to own a gun. I said that it is dangerous for a male or female victim of domestic violence to be living in a home with a gun, because apparently the abusers get to those guns more often than the victims do. Many of the incidents are murder/suicides.
Cool, then we basically may agree on that point.
She'd have to be as crazy as Nancy Lanza to keep a loaded (and unsecured) firearm in the same residence as a dangerous individual who's likely to hurt her with it (surely if he's willing to beat her out of consciousness, he may be willing to shoot her as well).
No kidding, Sherlock. I was using an analogy to show how constitutional rights are often wrongly used to support ridiculous legal positions... like giving guns to criminals and crazies.
Right back at cha' I was nearly in tears from laughing so hard at this post.
Biden's statement was directed at persecuting everyone whom are non-qualifiers to own a gun that get a background check. It has NOTHING to do with straw buyers.
Straw purchases are already illegal, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. Can you explain why the current law is not enforced effectively enough to discourage people from purchasing firearms for others? After that, explain why the new law would be any more effective.
Straw purchases are already illegal, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. Can you explain why the current law is not enforced effectively enough to discourage people from purchasing firearms for others? After that, explain why the new law would be any more effective.
How would you know, unless an unconstitutional registry, of "what gun belongs to who" is established.
Everyone has the right to protect themselves. Everyone.
It is up to you the individual, to have the education and training, with the ability to defend yourself from all evil, in the big bad world we live in today.
Straw purchases are already illegal, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. Can you explain why the current law is not enforced effectively enough to discourage people from purchasing firearms for others? After that, explain why the new law would be any more effective.
I've asked this question many times and the left will NEVER answer this question, and tempest wil stay way far away from it....just like he did my question...
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.
