Gun control

Leadsalad

Leadsalad

Cis-XYite-Nationalist
5,981
11,979
Kreugen_sl said:
I don't think the bill would have accomplished much of anything positive - only a time machine could have prevented Sandy Hook - but people cheering and chanting USA USA because they don't have to fill out a form before they can buy a gun on the internet seems a bit absurd.
Click to expand...
And this rustles my jimmies. You cannot buy a gun off the internet WITHOUT going through an FFL. Even private party sales over the internet need/should be going through an FFL.

The ONLY 'loophole' is private party face to face sales. They're not legal in CA without going through an FFL but many other states they are legal. It's hard to do a background check on something that isn't tracked at that point. And making a law that requires universal background checks, how does someone not just respond to, "Why didn't you get a background check on that gun you bought from someone else?" "I bought it before the law existed."
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,472
2,276
Yeah, the background check for person to person sales is impossible to enforce without universal registration. Registration is a non-starter with gun rights advocates because it's seen as a precursor to possible confiscation down the road not to mention that it would be nearly impossible to accomplish with the number of undocumented guns that are already out there. All in all it would have been a pretty pointless law to pass.
 
Rod-138

Rod-138

Trakanon Raider
1,142
891
The real fear for conservatives/gun owners is the give an inch take a mile saying. That can be applied to just about any major political point. When you sit back and ask yourself, what kind of asshole would be against this bill? obviously republicans / gun rights activists are loony as the fuck. Well, its fear of the next step. Some bills / laws do make sense at face value, but the danger isn't that bill, but the loophole/power it makes available for the next bill.

Sometimes you have to make a seemingly retarded stand to prevent a more retarded move later in the game. Its like taking a charge in basketball.
 
Pancreas

Pancreas

Vyemm Raider
1,125
3,818
BrutulTM_sl said:
Yeah, the background check for person to person sales is impossible to enforce without universal registration. Registration is a non-starter with gun rights advocates because it's seen as a precursor to possible confiscation down the road not to mention that it would be nearly impossible to accomplish with the number of undocumented guns that are already out there. All in all it would have been a pretty pointless law to pass.
Click to expand...
The only way you would get person to person background checks is if you essentially make those sales illegal and force people to use gun stores as agents to oversee private sales. The sale would be subject to all of the same checks as a regular in-store sale. If such a method was adopted the government should pay the store a fee for acting as the agent; otherwise the store will want to charge the buyer/seller a fee.

Universal registration does not technically exist, but I believe every gun store has to maintain records of every sale for 7 years, which essentially winds up being indefinitely. The store then has 24 hours to provide this information when requested by the FBI or some such government authority agency. So yeah there is no universal registration, but there is a network of information in place that almost acts like it.
 
Kreugen

Kreugen

Vyemm Raider
6,599
793
People think Obama can just make up a law that lets him come in and start taking guns away all on his own so yeah, I can see how they would be worried about a slippery slope.
 
Grim1

Grim1

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
4,865
6,822
Kreugen_sl said:
People think Obama can just make up a law that lets him come in and start taking guns away all on his own so yeah, I can see how they would be worried about a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
Nobody thinks that. But most people understand that if he did have the power then Obama would cut out the Second Amendment altogether. So those people who believe in the Second Amendment as is already think it has been encroached upon too much. You can't reason with them and they can't reason with you.

Both sides are so far apart that there probably isn't any room for compromise.
 
Qhue

Qhue

Tranny Chaser
7,488
4,438
The bigger issue is that the federal system of government is currently fucked. By requiring a supermajority of 60 in the senate for EVERY VOTE the entire system is not only not a democracy, it isn't even really a republic anymore.

If we take the vote on only the background checks and eliminate any state where the two senators split their votes you get the following : Senators representing 156.8 million voted "yes" and 77.22 million voted "no". So in terms of a Republic the vote may have been 54-46, but in terms of population renormalized to 100 it was 67-33.

Republican strategists know all this, they know they don't have to win the majority of the American people... they just need to be able to muster 40 votes in the senate representing not more than a third of the population in order to rule.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,805
150,504
Qhue_sl said:
The bigger issue is that the federal system of government is currently fucked. By requiring a supermajority of 60 in the senate for EVERY VOTE the entire system is not only not a democracy, it isn't even really a republic anymore.

If we take the vote on only the background checks and eliminate any state where the two senators split their votes you get the following : Senators representing 156.8 million voted "yes" and 77.22 million voted "no". So in terms of a Republic the vote may have been 54-46, but in terms of population renormalized to 100 it was 67-33.

Republican strategists know all this, they know they don't have to win the majority of the American people... they just need to be able to muster 40 votes in the senate representing not more than a third of the population in order to rule.
Click to expand...
That's why we have 2 houses. One represents the population (HoR) to represent the population equitably and the other (Senate) counterbalances that with 2 senators from each state to avoid tyranny of the majority.
 
C

Caliel

Bronze Knight of the Realm
186
0
Since the Republicans control the House, it is very unlikely that the bill would have gone anywhere there.
 
A

azeth

6,216
8
Big Phoenix_sl said:
How does registering stop them from being misused? Cars are stolen every day in this country and those are thoroughly regulated.
Click to expand...
Well registering a firearm thereby identifies that you have one. Should any criteria be established for removing ownership from people who don't fit that criteria - this is how they'd find you.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Azeth_sl said:
Well registering a firearm thereby identifies that you have one. Should any criteria be established for removing ownership from people who don't fit that criteria - this is how they'd find you.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The reason I fear the registration is exactly because I think this power could be misused (like taking guns from people who are taking xanax). Also, in case we have another mass shooting I want to make it harder for the government to ban and/or attempt to confiscate my property.

This round Obama and other gun control advocates were not trying to directly get confiscation. However, this is clearly the end goal of many of the anti-gun groups. We have seen in other countries a tragedy used to implement mass confiscation.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,797
93,652
Azeth_sl said:
Well registering a firearm thereby identifies that you have one. Should any criteria be established for removing ownership from people who don't fit that criteria - this is how they'd find you.
Click to expand...
So explain to me why in the hell would you deem someone who is dangerous and not allowed to be around firearms to be allowed out into society? The idea of baring felons or the "mentally ill" from owning guns is god damn idiotic and plain retarded. Its as stupid as releasing pedophiles into society but requiring them to notify the public of their presences.

Heres a novel idea; if a person is so damn dangerous they cant be trusted with a gun keep them locked up and out of society.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Interesting article on why the gun control initiatives after Sandy Hook failed.The article is definitely written from a pro-gun control angle though.

Money quote for me
"Focusing on assault weapons played right into the hands of the NRA, which has for years been saying that Obama wanted to ban guns. Gun control advocates ridiculed that idea-then proposed to ban the most popular rifle in America."
Click to expand...
Exactly. Obama and Biden saying they weren't out to ban guns and then advocating a ban on the most popular rifle (the AR-15) in america was absurd.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
<Gold Donor>
75,805
150,504
Big Phoenix_sl said:
So explain to me why in the hell would you deem someone who is dangerous and not allowed to be around firearms to be allowed out into society? The idea of baring felons or the "mentally ill" from owning guns is god damn idiotic and plain retarded. Its as stupid as releasing pedophiles into society but requiring them to notify the public of their presences.

Heres a novel idea; if a person is so damn dangerous they cant be trusted with a gun keep them locked up and out of society.
Click to expand...
I agree with Phoenix.

It doesnt make sense at all. We will offer the other 9 rights out of the Bill of Rights to a mentally deranged person but we will deny him the 10th one out of fear?

We will let the mentally deranged vote in every election and let them yell to the world whatever insanity they want (including starting mass cults, etc.) , but then we go ahead and deny them the right to a gun?

On a similar subject, as far as felons go, denying them franchise never even made sense to me. If you committed a felony (an arbitrary definition) under US law, you can no longer vote or own a gun. Doesnt matter if its a white crime felony or something else equally stupid. Some states have highway littering at felony status, so if you threw a cigarette butt out of the window you can end up a felon and never be able to vote or own a gun. Somehow this magically makes your views and opinions no longer valid at the voting booth in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.