Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support more restrictions on firearms?
Yes 64 52.89%
No 57 47.11%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-05-2016, 01:22 PM
 
5,444 posts, read 6,938,308 times
Reputation: 15146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
I don't disagree. But IMO that just means the country is torn on the issue. If it were really important enough to the voting base they would elect someone into office that is for or against gun control. IMO it just becomes a slippery slope. People praising him for his initiative when they agree with what he is trying to bypass congress to make law. What about if a future president takes to the pen to stop immigration from certain countries? If we are cool with Obama doing this, do we really have the right to not be cool with Trump stopping immigration from Islamic countries? Sure I guess, but it's about as hypocritical as you can get.
Also, without getting too off topic here, I think one major problem is with the bills themselves. The issue could have complete bi-partisan support, but then something gets tacked on at the bottom of the bill that has nothing to do with the actual main issue or completely undermines the purpose of the bill in the first place. This causes people to vote no because of that secondary issue.

I think of the Ohio legalization of weed. From everything I have read, the public thinks weed should be legal. Well, the government put on the bill, that voting yes would have legalized the sale, but they could only be sold by 10 specific facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow. Because of that 2nd portion, the public voted No. So, now they have no legal weed at all.

/offtopic

 
Old 01-05-2016, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
988 posts, read 677,013 times
Reputation: 1132
1. This issue is a winner for Democrats and a loser for the GOP in a general election. Obama is increasing background checks, and the public supports that, even a majority of gun owners. The NRA crowd is screaming, "Camel's nose in the tent!" but when the dust settles it will be clear that this is about background checks and nothing else. There will be a lot of scrutiny of this leading up to the election, so I don't think the NRA will successfully be able to tie it to, "making guns unavailable", etc.

2. The goal here is to reduce gun violence. Let me explain how that works to the pro-gun crowd, who are either very poor at statistics, liars, or both. Of course dedicated criminals will be able to get a gun even if gun sales were illegal. In the immortal words of my wife, "Duh." But the harder you make it to do something, the less people will do it. That's the point. Here's an analogy. Traffic laws are created not to eliminate traffic deaths, but to reduce them. That's the goal here as well. If you can drop traffic deaths by 10 percent on a given stretch of highway, that's a huge victory. Same with gun deaths. However, even with 90% of previous traffic deaths, people who want to drive 110 mph can point their fingers and say, "See? People are still dying in traffic accidents! Just 8 were killed in a two-car smashup last night! The new traffic laws do nothing!" Same with guns. But of course, these laws do something. It may not feel like it, when you're still looking at 18 mass shootings a year instead of 20, but you've done something. You've done a lot, in fact. So the goal here is not to eliminate gun deaths, or criminals getting their hands on guns, which is impossible. Those are false arguments put forth by the gun lobby. But you want to reduce gun deaths.

Now the effect will be this. We all know that making it harder to register to vote means that few people will register to vote. If you're really determined to register, you can, but fewer people will. It's the same with everything in life, as in "no exceptions". Whatever is more difficult to do, fewer people will do it. People abandon entire computer operating systems and software packages because they're asked to type a couple of extra keystrokes for commonly performed tasks. So making it more difficult to buy guns means that a few more potential criminals won't do it. Most still will, certainly. But that's not the point. The hardest of the hard core will have no problem getting guns. But maybe you stop a kid who is half-serious at a certain point in his life. So the stats go down, and you've done something.

3. For the love of God, can somebody explain this to me: How can you be like Donald Trump and the NRA crowd and point the finger at mental illness, and simultaneously be against background checks? How exactly do you propose to find these mentally ill people so that they can't buy a gun? Voodoo? Crystal ball? It boggles the mind! I don't think I would dare invent characters as crazy as these guys to populate a novel. I mean, do you ever take a step back and listen to yourselves?
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:03 PM
 
15,707 posts, read 20,229,697 times
Reputation: 20861
Quote:
Originally Posted by headingtoDenver View Post
This is my lack of knowledge talking here, but do you, or anyone else, know how many guns can be bought/sold without being considered a dealer? For instance, can I go to one show a year and sell 100 guns and just be considered a hobbyist and not keep sales records?

In Massachusetts, you are allowed 4 face-to-face sales per year. That's just sales. As a buyer, you can buy as many as you want FTF. If you wanted to sell #5, you have to go to a dealer and have them conduct the transaction.

However, sales can only be licensed individuals, and the seller is obligated to login to a state website to log the transaction by entering their License number, and the number of the buyer.



I wonder if this EO would change the rules for having an 03 FFL
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:12 PM
 
3,038 posts, read 2,397,150 times
Reputation: 3765
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonMike7 View Post
In Massachusetts, you are allowed 4 face-to-face sales per year. That's just sales. As a buyer, you can buy as many as you want FTF. If you wanted to sell #5, you have to go to a dealer and have them conduct the transaction.

However, sales can only be licensed individuals, and the seller is obligated to login to a state website to log the transaction by entering their License number, and the number of the buyer.



I wonder if this EO would change the rules for having an 03 FFL
Or you can become an oops felon.

Man I hate MA.
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:22 PM
 
76 posts, read 67,465 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1 View Post
Restricting the capacity of the law abiding to sell their firearms is an infringement. Now a deal with the GCA and NFA being removed from law in exchange for a BG check system one can do in the privacy of their own home with no tracking would be a reasonable compromise.

No, no it's not. Please, take your medication and try again.
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:29 PM
 
3,038 posts, read 2,397,150 times
Reputation: 3765
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenhippo View Post
No, no it's not. Please, take your medication and try again.
Property rights include the right to sell said property. Or is property not a right anymore?

Also, fantastic ad hominem that ads much to the discussion.
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:30 PM
 
3,038 posts, read 2,397,150 times
Reputation: 3765
So any braniacs figure out what the wonderfully clarified definition of a dealer now is? Clear as mud.
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Hickory, NC
1,197 posts, read 1,538,399 times
Reputation: 1713
I wonder if Obama cries every time he murders innocent people via drone?
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:37 PM
 
Location: TUS/PDX
7,813 posts, read 4,524,676 times
Reputation: 8836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redraven View Post
Where is this "funding" going to come from? Is obama going to pay for it out of his personal wealth?
According to the Constitution, ONLY congress can spend money. CONGRESS will have to fund this expansion of law enforcement. Congress will have to budget the money to increase the number of FBI personnel available to process background checks.
It remains to be seen if Congress will give obama the money he will need to do what he says he will do!
Congress just might say "NO!"
Actually, if the "early reports" are correct, the EO will accomplish little or nothing. Much of what it appears to say seems to be already covered by existing laws!
That, of course, means that it is basically an exercise in "Hey, look at me, look what I did!"
Or, quite possibly, "Hey, y'all, Hold my beer and WATCH THIS!!"
Can't have it both ways Skippy. You said you're in favor of enforcing the laws already in place, but you're unwilling to finance the cost of that enforment.
Here's an idea... maybe you come out of from behine the keyboard in your Mom's basement and volunteer in some law enforment capacity so you can get the laws upheld and not spend any cash doing it? Before you pop off by asking me to do the same I'm already on record saying I'll crack my checkbook wide open if it means I never have to see grade school kids turned into hambuger like in Sandy Hook.
 
Old 01-05-2016, 02:38 PM
 
3,038 posts, read 2,397,150 times
Reputation: 3765
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
Can't have it both ways Skippy. You said you're in favor of enforcing the laws already in place, but you're unwilling to finance the cost of that enforment.
Here's an idea... maybe you come out of from behine the keyboard in your Mom's basement and volunteer in some law enforment capacity so you can get the laws upheld and not spend any cash doing it? Before you pop off by asking me to do the same I'm already on record saying I'll crack my checkbook wide open if it means I never have to see grade school kids turned into hambuger like in Sandy Hook.
So why has the DOJ refused to prosecute people who illegally attempt to buy firearms at FFLs?
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top