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.
You are right that it is illegal activity. However, the powers that be do not want tighten security so these illegal activities will diminish.
Perhaps that is because there is no easy and/or effective way to both curb illegal trade and respect the rights of law abiding citizens at the same time. Take Universal Background Checks for instance. It's a great idea in theory, or on paper, but in practice there is no way to enforce that law because no there is no way to force a private citizen to put their buyers through a background check. So, what you would have is law abiding people running the checks on each other while criminals, who have no respect for the law, continued their illegal enterprise unaffected.
Such a law would rely on the criminals to abide by it, in other words, the honor system, rendering such laws ineffective.
Quote:
Yes, it is an imperfect world when people can just dismiss the fact that many people-including children die needlessly by the hands of people who should not have access to guns.
People die of a lot of things every day, where is your outrage? Where is your demand to rein in regs on these things? Hundreds if not thousands of children die every year in swimming pools.... are you out shilling for swimming control?
Quote:
Since when has the First Amendment only protected political speech? Have you ever heard of Larry Flynt? In case you are not familiar with the case, Jerry Falwell took Hustler Magazine to court. The court ruling:
"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions."
For once, we agree on something.
Quote:
I draw my conclusions from facts
Great! Why don't you try posting some of those facts you are referencing. I backed all of my conclusions up with facts, you did not. For example.... you said something along the lines of, "I don't believe adding more guns keeps this country safer" The implication is that you think more guns = more crime, right? I said I disagree, and that I don't think more guns causes more crime. To back my opinion up, I then went on to cite a study showing that as the crime rate has decreased in the last 20-30 years, the rate of private gun ownership has increased. This both debunks your theory that more guns causes more crime and backs mine up that more guns does not necessarily lead to more crime. This is how a debate is supposed to work. You can make all the claims you want, but be prepared to back them up with facts.
Quote:
I see the statistics. You seem to just want to dismiss the statistics
It's a noble goal and a great idea in theory. In practice however, it doesn't work, as I've already explained above. Before we try and implement a law requiring all purchases to go through a BGC, I think we need to figure out just how big of a problem it really is. To date, I have not saw any stats on just how many criminals buy guns from private individuals at guns shows or otherwise, have you? I think before we try and prescribe a solution, it's prudent to know just how big of a problem it is first, don't you agree?
Quote:
I know people are going to say that we already have that.
Anyone who would say we already have universal background checks knows about as little as you do about gun laws, I would say. We don't have universal background checks, because there is no way of enforcement. We do however require background checks to be conducted when someone buys a gun at a gun shop from a licensed dealer. You see, unlike living rooms and kitchen tables across America, gun shops are a controlled environment, and so we can enforce background checks at places like that. However, some states do require background checks on all gun sales. Just how many people ignore or otherwise flout that law are unknown.
Quote:
Right now, there are 33 states that do not require background checks for sales at gun shows
Total hogwash.
It's not up to the states.... The federal government requires anyone purchasing a firearm from a Licensed FFL dealer to undergo a background check and fill out a questionaire called Form 4473, whether they are at a gun show or not. Again, please educate yourself before you speak.
If you buy a gun from a private party at a gun show, it's true that you do not have to undergo a federal NICS check { depending on the state }.... I've advocated fixing that for a long time as it pertains to gun shows. Again, gun shows are controlled environments, just like gun shops. I see no problem with requiring all sales at gun shows to be accompanied by a background check.
As I tried to tell you before, all Federal, State, and local laws applyto gun shows the same as they do everything else.
Quote:
I want the gun industry and gun distribution REGULATED!!!!
That's good, because it is.
Quote:
So we don't have to experience another Newtown.
Anyone who believes we're going to significantly decrease the possibility of another Newtown is living in a fantasy world.... Even Joe Biden agrees.
"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,"
Joe Biden
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 04-29-2014 at 05:49 PM..
If the 2A didn't apply to the states at the time of it's ratification, it certainly did after the Fourteenth amendment.
However I do agree with you....The founders intended for the 2A to apply to all citizens, no matter what state they reside in.
It's probably untrue that the founders intended the 2nd to apply to State restrictions on firearms. They were delineating rights that Congress cannot limit (setting aside, for a moment, the confusing wording of the 2nd and the meaning of the term "arms").
It is the 14th, passed after the Civil War, that eventually applied the rights of the bill of rights to State government actions. It was not until the last decade or so that the 2nd was recognized as a limitation on State government power.
That's some batsh$t crazy idea, the reason to own a gun is to fight the democratically elected US government... Do you contemplate about shooting soldiers or police officers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
Opponents of that idea, point out that the principal reason for owning a gun, is to fight that very government.
That's some batsh$t crazy idea, the reason to own a gun is to fight the democratically elected US government... Do you contemplate about shooting soldiers or police officers?
(sigh)
Another historical ignoramous. The left seems loaded with them.
Where we disagree, is about who makes those restrictions, who judges what is acceptable.
Some people think government should do it, thus putting government in charge of deciding who can own and carry a gun, and who can't. Opponents of that idea, point out that the principal reason for owning a gun, is to fight that very government. And so giving govt the power to take people's guns away, is the LAST thing we should do.
Others think that "who should be allowed to carry and who shouldn't", should be decided by people who are NOT in government. And the decision is so important, it should be done strictly on a case-by case basis rather than trying to come up with a one-size-fits-all "rule".
What do you think?
I fully support the right to own a firearm and I own several myself.
But I do not support openly carrying firearms in places where they are normally never carried and where no one else deems it necessary to carry one. That's purely provocative.
That should be a one size fits all rule. I can't think of any case where toting an AR-15 in a Walmart is necessary or appropriate.
I fully support the right to own a firearm and I own several myself.
We know.... you've mentioned it many times. That doesn't make your opinion any more valid.
Quote:
But I do not support openly carrying firearms in places where they are normally never carried and where no one else deems it necessary to carry one
Then don't openly carry one in those places. That is your choice.... that is your Right. However, don't try and force me or others to accept your ideology.
Quote:
. That's purely provocative.
To say, "that's purely provocative" implies there is no reason to carry a firearm other than provocation. When the day comes that there are no beatings, hate crimes, murders, rapes, muggings, animal attacks, etc, then you may have a point. Until then, people have a valid reason to carry a firearm { not that they need a reason }
Quote:
I can't think of any case where toting an AR-15 in a Walmart is necessary or appropriate.
First we're talking about handguns, now we're talking about rifles? Make up your mind......
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 04-29-2014 at 09:37 PM..
That's some batsh$t crazy idea, the reason to own a gun is to fight the democratically elected US government... Do you contemplate about shooting soldiers or police officers?
Go take a history lesson. Yes, the Second Amendment was enshrined to ensure that the people, as a last resort, had the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. It is just one of the many checks and balances that the founders saw fit to place on government.
Many people aren't comfortable with that, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Then don't openly carry one in those places. That is your choice.... that is your Right. However, don't try and force me or others to accept your ideology.
Therein lies the problem. The social norm accepted by the vast majority of the population is not to tote a gun in places like Walmart, where the routine affairs of life are conducted. That is the basis on which our society operates.
When you bring a gun into that setting, you are impose your will on the vast majority of society that sees no reason to bring a deadly weapon into such settings. No one knows anything about you, whether you are trained or trustworthy or whether you are angry or unbalanced. If you don't realize that the vast majority of people feel that way, then you are indeed out of touch.
Nobody says you can't own guns, or that you can't take them to appropriate places and blast away. You are perfectly free to keep them in your own home or your own place of business (if you own it).
But when you sport them in places that are clearly inappropriate, then you're out of line. It's that simple.
And it's the same whether you've strapped an AR-15 across your chest or a Beretta .45 on your hip.
Therein lies the problem. The social norm accepted by the vast majority of the population is not to tote a gun in places like Walmart, where the routine affairs of life are conducted.
I'm not all that concerned with what the "accepted social norm" is to be quite honest.
Quote:
When you bring a gun into that setting, you are impose your will on the vast majority of society that sees no reason to bring a deadly weapon into such settings
Oh well. Too bad. It doesn't matter if they see a reason to be armed.... My right to arm myself doesn't rely on them seeing a reason.
Quote:
. No one knows anything about you, whether you are trained or trustworthy or whether you are angry or unbalanced.
Doesn't matter, they don't need to know anything about me. All they need to know is the law.
Quote:
If you don't realize that the vast majority of people feel that way, then you are indeed out of touch.
See you just aren't getting it. I don't care what the vast majority of people think or feel. I don't need their approval, nor do I want it.
Quote:
Nobody says you can't own guns, or that you can't take them to appropriate places and blast away. You are perfectly free to keep them in your own home or your own place of business (if you own it).
But when you sport them in places that are clearly inappropriate, then you're out of line. It's that simple.
As long as I am not breaking any laws or violating the wishes of a private property or business owner, I can carry a gun wherever I want and It's no one elses business.
End of story.
It's really that simple.
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.
