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.
Could you hold off on your anti-government paranoia for 5 minutes after govt employees sacrificed their lives today to some sh#t-for-brains tough guy with his big, bad gun?
The problem, of course, is NOT THE GUN. It's the SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY. Why is that so difficult to understand? When a SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY, or a psychotic jackass, or a chronically depressed loser or whatever other sort of idiot decides to go batsh#t and off some innocent people, the lack of ability to buy a gun isn't going to stop him. Sure, guns are an efficient tool for getting this job done, but it's not like they are the only tool available. Want proof? Look up the HappyLand social Clun. In 1990, a guy who just got dumped set fire to a crowded nightclub and killed 87 people. (If you want to see the story, here's a look back from the Daily News. Jealous ex-boyfriend's fury killed 87 in Happy Land fire 20 years ago - NY Daily News) So, are we going to make gasoline illegal to purchase too? Do we think that will stop all murderers, or even all arsonists?
The government does not really gave a **** about guns or laws they had the perfect opportunity to shut down winchester, a gun manufacturer which would have stopped HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns from being put on the street. But no, they pass a new law to clean the record of the company so they can stay in business...EVERYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY IS FOR SALE ....EVEN GOVERNMENT AND THE LAWS IT PASSES...i still don't get how people are so blind or in denial that then can say in this day and age "can you leave the government, bunker theories alone" these people clearly don't live in the same world as everyone else.....this government crazy.....and people walk around like "duuuhhhh ...the government wouldn't do that dduuuuhhhhhh.." fukin idiots
The problem, of course, is NOT THE GUN. It's the SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY. Why is that so difficult to understand? When a SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY, or a psychotic jackass, or a chronically depressed loser or whatever other sort of idiot decides to go batsh#t and off some innocent people, the lack of ability to buy a gun isn't going to stop him. Sure, guns are an efficient tool for getting this job done, but it's not like they are the only tool available. Want proof? Look up the HappyLand social Clun. In 1990, a guy who just got dumped set fire to a crowded nightclub and killed 87 people. (If you want to see the story, here's a look back from the Daily News. Jealous ex-boyfriend's fury killed 87 in Happy Land fire 20 years ago - NY Daily News) So, are we going to make gasoline illegal to purchase too? Do we think that will stop all murderers, or even all arsonists?
Oh right, Happyland. An illegal dance club where many wouldn't have died if BASIC FIRE REGULATIONS had been followed. There's that sensible regulation again, trying to protect people.
Turns out this latest shooter had a number of shooting incidents in his past where cops were called. Guess background checks aren't working too well.
The problem, of course, is NOT THE GUN. It's the SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY. Why is that so difficult to understand? When a SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY, or a psychotic jackass, or a chronically depressed loser or whatever other sort of idiot decides to go batsh#t and off some innocent people, the lack of ability to buy a gun isn't going to stop him. Sure, guns are an efficient tool for getting this job done, but it's not like they are the only tool available. Want proof? Look up the HappyLand social Clun. In 1990, a guy who just got dumped set fire to a crowded nightclub and killed 87 people. (If you want to see the story, here's a look back from the Daily News. Jealous ex-boyfriend's fury killed 87 in Happy Land fire 20 years ago - NY Daily News) So, are we going to make gasoline illegal to purchase too? Do we think that will stop all murderers, or even all arsonists?
No......but doing nothing isn't a common sense option. Obviously what we have been doing isnt working so we need to take steps until we find an option that does work. Contuing to do the same thing and getting bad results but expecting better results next time is the definition of insanity.
It is already federal law that all new firearms purchased anywhere in the country require a background check. Let me say that again: All of them, as in 100%. Whether you buy them at a gun store, a gun show, or anywhere else. Why can the federal government constitutionally impose this requirement? Because it is assumed that in most cases the firearm manufacturer is in a different state than the buyer, and the constitution provides the federal government with the authority to regulate interstate commerce. [As a side note, Montana has created a law that clarifies that if the firearm is 100% manufactured within the state of Montana, then all federal gun laws do not apply. This law still stands unchallenged by the feds.]
It is already federal law that all used guns where the buyer and seller are NOT residents of the same state require a background check. Again, all of them, as in 100%. As with new firearms, this is the case regardless of the venue where the gun is purchased, including gun shows. Why can they impose this requirement? Because this is another example of interstate commerce.
So, point one here, your statement regarding gun shows that "anyone can purchase guns there without question" is a complete and utter falsehood. You really should stop making stuff up. I don't mind if people have honest disagreements about matters that are not factual, but you do not understand the facts about this subject.
So there is only one more category left, that being sales of used guns where both the buyer and the seller are residents of the same state. This makes this form of commerce fall into the category of intrastate commerce. The constitution does not give the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, which means they do not have the authority to require a background check for those sales. Any attempt by the feds to regulate used firearms sales where the buyer and seller are from the same state would be struck down in the courts as this is clearly not interstate commerce.
So, the feds are in fact already requiring background checks for ALL firearms purchases where they have the authority to do so. You may wish they could do more, but the reality is they can not.
The other point that seems to have flown by you is that we don't have a great deal of disagreement about the value of requiring background checks for all firearms purchases. In general, I am fine with that requirement. If they are really checking against an accurate database it should be a way to prevent people (convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be insane) who should not have guns from purchasing them. I simply suggest that the regulation of interstate commerce must be left to the states, and therefore the one remaining case needs to be addressed on a state by state basis.
Further, I'd like to ensure that these background checks are effective, and minimize the inconvenience to the gun buyer. Waiting periods are an interesting example. I can live with a waiting period for my first gun purchase. I don't necessarily buy into the notion that they help prevent crimes of passion (as though nobody has a 10" chef's knife in their kitchen, or a baseball bat in the garage), and I don't like it, but I can live with it. But, once I have one or more guns they serve no useful purpose except as an inconvenience to the firearms buyer. The government knows I already own one or more firearms, so why impose a waiting period? It's silly. To me, changing these rules to only impose a waiting period on your first firearm purchase would be a true example of common sense gun regulation.
A couple of points...
1. You obviously realize the incredibly large loopholes through which one can easily circumnavigate the current background check systems, correct? These loopholes are the ones that fuel the interstate gun trade that sees weapons from West Virginia and the Carolinas end up being used to commit crimes in NJ. Let's just say that the gun show in West Virigina actually enforces background checks on purchases between non-dealers and out of state buyers. The out of state buyer just goes and gets an in state buyer to purchase the gun for him. These transactions happen EVERY DAY. Around 85% of the guns used to commit crimes in NJ originate from out of state. How are these criminals getting these guns if the background check system is working perfectly fine?
2. There are a couple of options on enforcing truly universal background checks on all purchases. One uses the Interstate Commerce Clause, the other is an incentive based approach. Since it can be demonstrated that weapons not covered through the background check system are in fact moving around the country, the Federal government could impose its right to attempt to regulate such commerce. Even if the commerce is "black market" it is still commerce. The second would be to pass the law requiring such checks and using the "21 to Drink" method. Tie critical funding to the states to be dependent on adoption of the law. Both methods have been Supreme Court tested. In Gonzalez vs. Raich the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress has power to regulate commerce that may impact an interstate black market. In South Dakota vs. Dole the Supreme Court affirmed that the Federal government has the right to make certain funding conditional in order to "encourage uniformity of laws that promote general welfare". So, it is very much within the power of the Federal government through either illustrated method to regulate and require background checks on ALL firearms purchases. The recent Heller decision affirmed the right of regulation.
Your point about Montana is actually invalid as while the case has not made its way to the Supreme Court that doesn't mean it hasn't been challenge. As soon as the law went into effect the BATFE stated its position that Federal law supercedes Montana law and that all manufacturers and dealers must comply with Federal law. A manufacturer and dealer along with lobbying groups filed suit. A lower court struck down their motion. They then appealed and the higher circuit court said that they did have grounds to file, but stated that existing SC precedent did not favor the plaintiffs case. That just happened in August of 2013. It will be appealed to the Supreme Court and there is near universal agreement that it will be struck down.
3. My final point would be that the "evil R word", registries, are among the only effective ways to combat the illegal gun trade. Once registries are established at a national level to tie owners to their guns, just as automobiles are tied to their owners, the trade in illegal firearms into criminals hands will be severely curtailed. It would also allow for a lessening of purchase regulations since we know where the gun is going. Obviously the owner would be responsible for what happens to that gun. If it magically shows up in the possession of a gang banger who committed a murder in Camden, while being registered to Tom Smith in PA and Tom Smith never reported it stolen...well, Tom Smith has some questions to answer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ
no, less guns. why offer of the threat of resistance when we can just make the world into a shooting gallery for people intent on mass murder.
I think this incident is a pretty clear cut example of how even armed security is pretty useless at stopping these types of incidents. My neighbor is an engineer in NAVSEA and has been at the DC Naval Yard hundreds of times. He said since 9/11 the place is an armed camp with dozens of DOJ security officers patrolling the site. If they were unable to prevent this attack, then it does deeply call into question the "good guy with a gun offering resistance" argument. There is little point commenting on the other aspects until we know the overall story, how he got the gun, what was his criminal background, etc. For instance, there are conflicting reports over the gun used. One source says it was an "assault rifle" that he brought with him, while another is saying he used a shotgun initially and then took the "assault rifle" off of a dead security officer.
Oh right, Happyland. An illegal dance club where many wouldn't have died if BASIC FIRE REGULATIONS had been followed. There's that sensible regulation again, trying to protect people.
Basic fire regulations are not really designed for preventing deaths if someone is actually out to kill people. If you're crazy enough to want to commit mass murder like that, I don't think it'd be much harder to do in the modern day. You'd get some chain and locks, go chain up the fire exit doors, then do the same thing.
Quote:
Turns out this latest shooter had a number of shooting incidents in his past where cops were called. Guess background checks aren't working too well.
The problem, of course, is NOT THE GUN. It's the SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY. Why is that so difficult to understand? When a SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY, or a psychotic jackass, or a chronically depressed loser or whatever other sort of idiot decides to go batsh#t and off some innocent people, the lack of ability to buy a gun isn't going to stop him. Sure, guns are an efficient tool for getting this job done, but it's not like they are the only tool available. Want proof? Look up the HappyLand social Clun. In 1990, a guy who just got dumped set fire to a crowded nightclub and killed 87 people. (If you want to see the story, here's a look back from the Daily News. Jealous ex-boyfriend's fury killed 87 in Happy Land fire 20 years ago - NY Daily News) So, are we going to make gasoline illegal to purchase too? Do we think that will stop all murderers, or even all arsonists?
Every time there's a mass shooting, I keep hearing that the problem wasn't the gun. And yet we keep protecting your precious right to buy more guns and inevitably they end up in the wrong hands, providing an incredibly efficient killing tool for another nut.
(And your gasoline argument is so illogical that it isn't worthy of discussion)
Basic fire regulations are not really designed for preventing deaths if someone is actually out to kill people. If you're crazy enough to want to commit mass murder like that, I don't think it'd be much harder to do in the modern day. You'd get some chain and locks, go chain up the fire exit doors, then do the same thing.
People that are determined to kill are going to find a way. Guns just happen to be an efficient and effective tool for doing it. Given how rather easy they are to acquire, they are simply a "first choice" option for most people desiring to commit such an act.
1. In Seattle in 2004 he shot out the tires of a vehicle owned by a construction worker doing work on his block. He claimed that the workers had "mocked" him and that he "blacked out" when he fired the gun. He told police and his father corroborated the story, that he was suffering from PTSD after participating in rescue operations on 9/11 in NYC.
2. In Fort Worth in 2010 he was questioned by police after he discharged a gun in his apartment. The bullet went through the ceiling and into the unit above his. He claimed that he was cleaning the gun when it went off and that it was an accident. The police accepted his story.
The problem, of course, is NOT THE GUN. It's the SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY. Why is that so difficult to understand? When a SHI#T-FOR-BRAINS TOUGH GUY, or a psychotic jackass, or a chronically depressed loser or whatever other sort of idiot decides to go batsh#t and off some innocent people, the lack of ability to buy a gun isn't going to stop him. Sure, guns are an efficient tool for getting this job done, but it's not like they are the only tool available. Want proof? Look up the HappyLand social Clun. In 1990, a guy who just got dumped set fire to a crowded nightclub and killed 87 people. (If you want to see the story, here's a look back from the Daily News. Jealous ex-boyfriend's fury killed 87 in Happy Land fire 20 years ago - NY Daily News) So, are we going to make gasoline illegal to purchase too? Do we think that will stop all murderers, or even all arsonists?
Agree to truly universal background checks and a national registry with restrictions for mental disease and criminal history and I support your right to own pretty much anything you want. Of course for most in the pro-gun debate that's a non-sequitor since you "can't trust the government" and they'll just come and take our guns away once we tell them we have them...
Basic fire regulations are not really designed for preventing deaths if someone is actually out to kill people. If you're crazy enough to want to commit mass murder like that, I don't think it'd be much harder to do in the modern day. You'd get some chain and locks, go chain up the fire exit doors, then do the same thing.
What were the shooting incidents specifically?
WTF? of course working sprinklers and fire exits would've prevented such a huge loss of life.
And the perp was tossed out after fighting with his girlfriend. He wouldn't have been allowed in to lock up doors. Not that it would've mattered. The back doors were already locked to prevent people from sneaking in. The only doors that worked were in the entrance.
Gun luvers really stretch reality to "prove" that common sense regulations covering certain dangerous activities have no real benefit.
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.
