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.
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?
Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something for the sake of doing anything. We end up losing more of our rights, as the government takes more control.
We have far more problems to work on than pulling down the 2nd.
We certainly need to focus on the false economy created by fiat magic, and the incredible mess this administration has created in the middle east, among others. We are being made to focus on side issues to keep us preoccupied, while the absolute ineptitude of our politicians is sending civilization closer to a world war.
"Your not selling it thru the Internet your advertising it 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."
I am forever impressed with the "splitting of hairs" throughout this discussion, semantics. Again to use the smoking analogy, you can't advertise and/or "sell" cigarettes over the Internet, why allow guns be sold this way without proper oversight? Background checks? Seems to me a worthwhile "loop hole" to end at little expense to gun enthusiasts and society on balance. In the name of doing all that can reasonably be done...
"Your not selling it thru the Internet your advertising it 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."
I am forever impressed with the "splitting of hairs" throughout this discussion, semantics. Again to use the smoking analogy, you can't advertise and/or "sell" cigarettes over the Internet, why allow guns be sold this way without proper oversight? Background checks? Seems to me a worthwhile "loop hole" to end at little expense to gun enthusiasts and society on balance. In the name of doing all that can reasonably be done...
Oh my.. YOU CANNOT BUY a gun over the internet and have it delivered to your house. It MUST be delivered to a FFL where you have to pass all the checks to get it. You FIRST must apply for the proper permit (in most states), THEN order it, THEN go to a FFL where you get ANOTHER NICS background check THEN you can take it home if you pass.
Your not selling it thru the Internet your advertising it on the Internet.
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 really feel your pain, but on balance..., in light of the level of gun violence we have in this country, I have got to side with the thinking that maybe it isn't such a good idea to have guns bought and sold down at the parking lot. Not that I don't trust the judgement and integrity of all gun enthusiasts..., but I think the sale of weapons really should be regulated, even more so than now. Call me an idiot for thinking so...
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.
Of course this argument is repeated over and over even though it seems those who promote it never seem to understand the flaw at a most fundamental level.
Yes, of course, any law, restriction, regulation "= Less Freedom."
But surely, nobody in their right mind considers this an argument against the rule of law and all we decide is right and proper for the sake of living a quality life together, right? One can always point to ANY law, ANY regulation, ANY law-enforcement action and lament a loss of freedom, but this is a ridiculous premise from which to begin considering what additional legal protections we might best legislate.
Might want to study up a bit on what is known as the "social contract," whether you long to live the way of the "Wild West" or not. Hate to break it to all you self-anointed gun-toting "freedom fighters," but you are part of this society in today's modern world. We NEED these laws and restrictions to live together as we must, like it or not...
Oh my.. YOU CANNOT BUY a gun over the internet and have it delivered to your house. It MUST be delivered to a FFL where you have to pass all the checks to get it. You FIRST must apply for the proper permit (in most states), THEN order it, THEN go to a FFL where you get ANOTHER NICS background check THEN you can take it home if you pass.
Good to know, great to hear! And rightfully so!
But apparently, there are "loop holes" that make these buy/sell transactions less "safe," less effective in terms of the law's intent. I don't know exactly what those loop holes might be, but I have heard much about them from politicians and public forums to suspect that perhaps more can be done in terms of better enforcement and/or oversight. IOWs, more/better can be done, and so it should be done.
Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something for the sake of doing anything. We end up losing more of our rights, as the government takes more control.
We have far more problems to work on than pulling down the 2nd.
We certainly need to focus on the false economy created by fiat magic, and the incredible mess this administration has created in the middle east, among others. We are being made to focus on side issues to keep us preoccupied, while the absolute ineptitude of our politicians is sending civilization closer to a world war.
Please..., forever the suggestion that all is futile, and then of course the pretension that gun enthusiasts are not only protectors of the Constitution but endowed with a special sense of when the Constitution is threatened.
HOW MANY TIMES NEED THIS BE EXPLAINED: we have the SCTUS there for the purpose of insuring laws are not passed that are deemed unconstitutional. With all due respect to gun fans, you are not the constitutional scholars you think you are! Awfully good at raising unwarranted fears about this though!
Not surprising as well is the cause/effect understanding of the Middle East. Anyone want to describe the time in the Middle East when it was not for all practical purposes an "incredible mess?" Say since before Obama's parents were even born...?
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?
No, though always veiled behind the Constitution.
I wonder how our Founding Fathers would view all this given their painstaking effort to craft legislation that was designed not only to protect our freedoms but to protect us from ourselves! Never mind their mistakes as well that didn't exactly provide freedom for all, but they had a fairly good excuse given their time. None of us have that sort of excuse for ignorance today, except those that perhaps didn't get through high school...
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.
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.
Very true about the extremes, and as such we have good reason to think a little more critically about what either extreme uses for propaganda to promote their agenda. Where is the point of perfect balance? I think it is when gun enthusiasts can still do their gun thing but also look at gun control advocates and rightfully say, there is no more that can reasonably be done to restrict gun violence.
Let us not forget that the work of our entire Congress on essentially all issues of public policy, not just this one, is to broker toward that point of ideal balance, a work forever in progress...
I leave it to either side to broker where that fine balance may lie, but I am most certainly inclined to support just about ANY steps considered worthy by gun control advocates that does not impose on law-abiding gun enthusiasts to have their gun fun in any consequential way. I think both sides owe it to each other to arrive at that point ASAP, no matter how much money the gun lobby spends to postpone or prevent that balance.
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.
Lo siento...
