Let's Talk Second Amendment

[Ringo84]

There is no "gun show loophole."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check | PolitiFact

Those wanting more gun regulation are a real threat to their liberties.

Only in their overactive imaginations.

I think Dianne Feinstein does. And the legislative history of gun "regulators" is one of creeping incrementalism, of gradual steps toward the outright banning of firearms. The "regulators" have succeeded in banning the manufacture of one category of firearms. They've severely restricted the ownership of safety accessories. They've severely curtailed and made far more expensive and time consuming the manufacture of other firearms. Some firearms are too small to import. Some firearms are too affordable.

That's Dianne Feinstein. I'm not Dianne Feinstein.

What is this category of firearm that has been banned?

Anyone in favor of "gun control" or "sensible regulation" or whatever euphemism they cloak their rhetoric in is part of the same group.

Clearly not true, as I have repeatedly stated that I don't have a problem with gun ownership that is responsible. Heavy-duty machinery like assault rifles and grenades, though, should be kept in the hands of professionals.

Perhaps if you want to have a conversation, you should educate yourself about the issues you wish to converse about.

Perhaps if you want to have a conversation, you should not lump me in the same group as Dianne Feinstein.

It's not very good at its job now.

Then perhaps it should have a director that helps the bureau run more efficiently.

Why would they want to act in a way that's that contrary to their decisions?

If they'd have sat down with the regulators in New York, the regulators in New York would have learned about the gun regulations in California, and that California compliant SCARY BLACK RIFLES are also NYSAFE Act compliant.

If they'd have sat down with regulators, perhaps we wouldn't see regulation that you claim is unnecessary and does not have an effect.

What's "military grade hardware?" Your grandaddy's hunting rifle is an "armor piercing cop killer sniper rifle" and it's "military grade hardware." Pretty much any bolt action rifle is. Do you take that phrase "military grade hardware" like it sounds, and outlaw your Remington 870? What about the duck hunter's Mossberg 500? What about the moose hunter's Remington 700? Those are all "military grade hardware." What about the tens of millions of actual military weapons used by actual military forces in actual armed conflicts around the world? I have dozens of such weapons. See how vague "military grade hardware" is?

I would define it as assault rifles; grenades; rocket, grenade and RPG launchers; etc. That's just me.

Because it's a stupid rule.

I agree with you about zero tolerance rules, but I think they're a separate issue.

.
2) Suppressors are a safety device. Firearms emit lots and lots of noise which is damaging to people's hearing. The use of suppressors can alleviate that. They can also be useful in that context for hunting. They help with muzzle flash, too.
3) The use of suppressors can help gun run ranges and those who are dumb and move in near them [yes, I do hold people who move near a shooting range and then complain about noise in that much contempt] and then file noise complaints to coexist, by the alleviation of the noise that firearms make.

If it's such a non-sensical law, let gun owners sit down with regulators and tell them that instead of refusing to work with them and then complaining about the results.

liberty loving individual

Again, it's little weasel words like this that make it tough to have a real discussion. So people who don't agree with you don't "love liberty"?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Or they start by enforcing the laws that they already have.

Go read that. It's educational.

The cliff notes version is that 72,000 people were denied by background checks from purchasing a firearm when they lied on a Form 4473.

If you read through to the bottom, 45 of those people were actually prosecuted.

Before you propose new laws, try enforcing the ones on the books.

So, out of 72,000 people who lied on the gun buying form, the government prosecuted 45 of them.

45.





Or they point out that regulators don't actually care about gun laws.

See my example above.



Except, what's the point of another law? The government doesn't enforce the law as it stands.

Fine; have the government enforce the laws currently on the books. I have no problem with that.
Ringo

 

[GondwanaLand]

Such as closing the gun show loophole,

There's no such thing. This is a boogeyman phrase made by antigun folks.

and expanding background checks.

1. How do you propose to "expand" them? Who are you expanding them to?
2. How about you get the government to get their butts in gear and deal with the current background checks? The current admin (and previous ones are no better) has prosecuted something a tiny fraction of those who lie on their background check form and get caught (the rest were denied guns, obviously, but not prosecuted). When Biden was challenged on this, in the face of his admin's attempts to "expand" background checks, his response was they "[FONT=&quot]simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form[/FONT]". So how, pray tell, would adding even MORE forms, which they apparently don't care about or have time or manpower to prosecute, be productive?

If gun owners are cynical and reactive, it's because they're overly sensitive to perceived threats to their liberties - not because of those wanting more gun regulation.

No, it's because people are constantly trying to ban the guns we use, and limit our rights to use them.

I stopped reading right here. There are no "anti-gunners" and "gun banners".

Utterly false. I suggest you learn something - go listen to Dianne Feinstein sometime and then come back here and try making that claim with a straight face.

First, the ATF ought to actually have a director so that it can do its job.

They've had a director (several in fact) for years.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check | PolitiFact

Michael Bloomberg should have been convicted as an accessory to illegal gun trafficking. He sent minions out to make straw purchases.

Of course, ever since his MAIG group scrubbed their member's list [members of his group were arrested with remarkable regularity], I've kind of discounted anything he says.

Even politifact rates this as a half truth.

"We don't need more laws. We need a couple of fixes," Bloomberg said. "There's a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check at a gun show, 40 percent of guns are sold that way, same thing on the Internet. … The NRA has opposed anything."

There isn't even any way to verify his 40% number, because there is no way of counting gun sales. The only way to even guess is to look at NICS checks, but that's likely a low estimate, because the dealer only runs one of those for every transaction and each transaction can include multiple guns.

Only in their overactive imaginations.

So, real and current abuses of government power, in the interests of "regulation," or quote a phrase, sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people is relegated to a figment of our overactive imaginations.

These grievances are real. To relegate them to a figment of imagination. Well, that's not a way to start an adult conversation.

That's Dianne Feinstein. I'm not Dianne Feinstein.

You self identify as a member of her group. Don't complain when people lump you in with her.

What is this category of firearm that has been banned?

The NFA registry has prohibited the manufacture of new automatic firearms since the 1980s. Those legally in possession of them are allowed to remain in possession of them, sell them, and buy them, but people aren't allowed to make more.

Of course, then you get into what the ATF considers a machine gun.

Clearly not true, as I have repeatedly stated that I don't have a problem with gun ownership that is responsible. Heavy-duty machinery like assault rifles and grenades, though, should be kept in the hands of professionals.

You do know that your grandfather's hunting rifle is more powerful than an assault rifle, right?

Charles Whitman used a Remington 700.

Perhaps if you want to have a conversation, you should not lump me in the same group as Dianne Feinstein.

Perhaps you should refrain from self identifying as a member of her group if you don't want to be identified with her.

Then perhaps it should have a director that helps the bureau run more efficiently.

They have a director.

If they'd have sat down with regulators, perhaps we wouldn't see regulation that you claim is unnecessary and does not have an effect.

Why? Why would I, or any other self respecting free person wish to help the government restrict my freedoms?

That is not rational.

Your argument also presupposes that Congress will listen.

I would define it as assault rifles; grenades; rocket, grenade and RPG launchers; etc. That's just me.

So, actual military weapons used by a military in a time of conflict don't meet your cut as military grade hardware? I assume that you harbor the same feelings toward semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles.

Because any definition of military grade hardware that omits actual military rifles, used by actual military forces, in actual conflict strikes me as remarkably absurd.

I agree with you about zero tolerance rules, but I think they're a separate issue.

.

I agree.

If it's such a non-sensical law, let gun owners sit down with regulators and tell them that instead of refusing to work with them and then complaining about the results.

Why? It's better to watch them shoot themselves in the foot, and then point out that they're idiots.

There's a couple examples of that from the NYSAFE Act.

Again, it's little weasel words like this that make it tough to have a real discussion. So people who don't agree with you don't "love liberty"?
Ringo

No, people who argue for "reasonable regulation," "common sense gun law," or whatever the buzzword of the week is who don't love liberty. Of course, it's kind of hard to have a discussion with someone who doesn't think that "military grade hardware" includes actual military weapons, issued to and used by armed forces.


If people truly "love liberty" how can they want to restrict it?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Fine; have the government enforce the laws currently on the books. I have no problem with that.
Ringo

Shouldn't that be a first step before passing other laws?

Your argument seems to be that we need more laws.

How will having more laws help when the government has a proven track record of not enforcing the ones we already have?

 

[Ringo84]

There's no such thing. This is a boogeyman phrase made by antigun folks.

Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. How do you propose to "expand" them? Who are you expanding them to?

Make them universal, and prohibit straw purchases.

They've had a director (several in fact) for years.

According to Wikipedia, the ATF was left to be run by acting directors until 2013:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even politifact rates this as a half truth.

"Under the law, federally licensed dealers must verify that a buyer has not been convicted of a serious crime or declared mentally incompetent or is blocked for any of about 10 reasons. Typically this is done online and takes less than a day.

But only licensed dealers must do this. The law doesn’t apply to private sellers at gun shows, flea markets, or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet. If a private seller suspects that a buyer would be disqualified under federal rules, then they can’t go through with the sale. But there is no background check, and no one needs to file any paperwork."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says 40 percent of guns are sold without a background check | PolitiFact

So, real and current abuses of government power, in the interests of "regulation," or quote a phrase, sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people is relegated to a figment of our overactive imaginations.

You needle me for providing a link from Bloomberg, whom you essentially dismiss out of hand, and then give a link from "Guns Saves Lives"?

I don't dispute that there have been abuses of power, but I'm not inclined to take that group's word at face value.

You self identify as a member of her group. Don't complain when people lump you in with her.

Perhaps you should refrain from self identifying as a member of her group if you don't want to be identified with her.

Do you agree with everything a member of your "group" says?

The NFA registry has prohibited the manufacture of new automatic firearms since the 1980s. Those legally in possession of them are allowed to remain in possession of them, sell them, and buy them, but people aren't allowed to make more.

According to what I read, the NFA merely requires manufacturers to register with the Treasury. Weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986 are not "transferable" between citizens.

You do know that your grandfather's hunting rifle is more powerful than an assault rifle, right?

In that case, what's the use of owning an assault rifle?

Why? Why would I, or any other self respecting free person wish to help the government restrict my freedoms?

That is not rational.

What's not rational is thinking that expanding background checks or regulating straw purchases is "limiting [your] freedom".

So, actual military weapons used by a military in a time of conflict don't meet your cut as military grade hardware? I assume that you harbor the same feelings toward semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles.

Because any definition of military grade hardware that omits actual military rifles, used by actual military forces, in actual conflict strikes me as remarkably absurd.

What would you suggest?

Why? It's better to watch them shoot themselves in the foot, and then point out that they're idiots.

It strikes me as odd to refuse to work with legislators and then complain about "dumb" laws.

No, people who argue for "reasonable regulation," "common sense gun law," or whatever the buzzword of the week is who don't love liberty.

Have I said that guns should be completely banned?
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Double post.
Ringo

 

[GondwanaLand]

Gun shows in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And? What about it? Try using your words.

Make them universal,

How in the world would you implement such a thing? Unless you have big brother cameras up covering every square foot of the country, your proposal is impossible.

Not to mention, as I noted, the government isn't even bothering with the vast majority of violators as it is, and biden himself admits they don't have the time or manpower to prosecute those who lie on their background check formss and get caught, so why in the world would you expand it and make more for them to ignore?

and prohibit straw purchases.

Straw purchases are already prohibited.

According to Wikipedia, the ATF was left to be run by acting directors until 2013:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Key Word Alert: Directors.

Acting directors.... guess what? Act as the director of the agency! Whoda thunk it?

They've not been without a director.

I note you seem to have avoided the fact that your claim that there is no such thing as "gunbanners" was refuted. I take it you went and researched Feinstein?

 

[Ringo84]

And? What about it? Try using your words.

Read the link.

How in the world would you implement such a thing? Unless you have big brother cameras up covering every square foot of the country, your proposal is impossible.

Why would expanded background checks of private sales require 'Big Brother'?

Straw purchases are already illegal

Well...that depends:

When made at a federally licensed firearm dealership, straw purchases can be illegal in the United States. A straw purchaser of a firearm who lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the transaction is not a straw purchase, and the person buying the gift is considered the end user. Straw purchases made outside of federally regulated dealerships are legal unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser. [1]

Straw purchase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Key Word Alert: Directors.

Acting directors.... guess what? Act as the director of the agency! Whoda thunk it?

They've not been without a director.

They've been without a full-time director because the Senate had refused to confirm one between 2006-2011:


ATF, charged with regulating guns, lacks resources and leadership - The Washington Post

I note you seem to have avoided the fact that your claim that there is no such thing as "gunbanners" was refuted.

Fine; there's Feinstein. I'm not Dianne Feinstein.
Ringo

 

[Boondock_Saint]

In Illinois, in order to carry hand guns I have to take classes and that gives me two choices: miss Church or take vacation. Only then will I be able to carry. The state is well in its rights to regulate guns any way they want. And they should be able to.
Just as Indiana (my home state) has the right to make guns as easily accessible as possible. There is nothing wrong with either.

But the real debate isn't about guns. It's about safety. Clearly we have a right to both. The Supreme Court ruled that no state can totally ban guns. So I don't think there is much to talk about until some federal laws get passed to change things up or until we have 5 Liberal justices who will undoubtedly strip us of freedoms some of us choose to enjoy.

What we need to talk about is mental health. Because we have guns and they aren't going any time soon. And the gun bans aren't having enough of an impact. So to really make an impact RIGHT NOW, the left needs understand that guns aren't going away and to focus on what really is hurting America. And that is the break down of the family. That is where we need to put our focus. Because the break down of the family, I believe, is causing more harm than guns.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Make them universal, and prohibit straw purchases.

So, then, why didn't the federal government prosecute Bloomberg and his agents when they went and made straw purchases?

And straw purchases are already illegal.

According to Wikipedia, the ATF was left to be run by acting directors until 2013:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, they had people running it.

"Under the law, federally licensed dealers must verify that a buyer has not been convicted of a serious crime or declared mentally incompetent or is blocked for any of about 10 reasons. Typically this is done online and takes less than a day.

Typically it takes five minutes.

But only licensed dealers must do this. The law doesn’t apply to private sellers at gun shows, flea markets, or people who post firearms for sale on the Internet. If a private seller suspects that a buyer would be disqualified under federal rules, then they can’t go through with the sale. But there is no background check, and no one needs to file any paperwork."

Nope. Isn't the freedom to as one sees fit with one's own property a wonderful thing?

You needle me for providing a link from Bloomberg, whom you essentially dismiss out of hand, and then give a link from "Guns Saves Lives"?

Yes, I do. I dismiss anything that the soda banner says out of hand.

I don't dispute that there have been abuses of power, but I'm not inclined to take that group's word at face value.

There's videos of it all over the internet.

Do you agree with everything a member of your "group" says?

It depends on what you define as my group.

According to what I read, the NFA merely requires manufacturers to register with the Treasury. Weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986 are not "transferable" between citizens.

Like I said, the ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians since 1986.

In that case, what's the use of owning an assault rifle?

I don't know. Why does the government have tens of millions of them?

What's not rational is thinking that expanding background checks or regulating straw purchases is "limiting [your] freedom".

umm...they're telling me that I can't dispose of my property as I see fit. If the government thinks a person is safe enough to be allowed to walk around in public, and be trusted, what's with the halfway measures?

What would you suggest?

Pop quiz. Which of these rifles is "military grade hardware in your definition of the term:

It strikes me as odd to refuse to work with legislators and then complain about "dumb" laws.

I pay legislators to sit around and understand laws so that I don't have to spend my time doing that. If they don't like being criticized for dumb laws, then they shouldn't pass dumb laws.

Have I said that guns should be completely banned?
Ringo

You're arguing that gun banners don't want to ban guns in the face of eighty years of legislative history to the contrary.

 

[Ringo84]

In Illinois, in order to carry hand guns I have to take classes and that gives me two choices: miss Church or take vacation. Only then will I be able to carry. The state is well in its rights to regulate guns any way they want. And they should be able to.
Just as Indiana (my home state) has the right to make guns as easily accessible as possible. There is nothing wrong with either.

Fair enough.

But the real debate isn't about guns. It's about safety.

Agreed.

What we need to talk about is mental health

Why not talk both about gun regulation AND mental health?

the left needs understand that guns aren't going away

I don't want guns to "go away". I just want to see better regulation so that gun ownership across the country is responsible.

and to focus on what really is hurting America. And that is the break down of the family. That is where we need to put our focus. Because the break down of the family, I believe, is causing more harm than guns.

Well, that's the subject of another thread. But I will say this: I don't think the family is "breaking down" at all. Far from it. The definition of family is expanding; not contracting.
Ringo

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Why would expanded background checks of private sales require 'Big Brother'?

Without knowing who owns what, how do you implement a universal background system?

If the government can't prove that an individual acquired a firearm after a universal background check law was imposed, how can the government prove that an individual violated it? Without mandatory gun registration, a universal background check law is unenforceable.

Bear in mind, that you cannot penalize criminals for failing to register their firearms, because it violates their protection against self incrimination.

So, basically, the government could only enforce a universal background check law against people who follow the law, don't commit crimes, and aren't inclined to commit crimes, so, what's the point of it?

 

[tulc]

Pop quiz. Which of these rifles is "military grade hardware in your definition of the term:

is that an M1 on the right?
tulc(is just curious)

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

is that an M1 on the right?
tulc(is just curious)

Nope.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

[/size][/color][/font



[/color]Well, that's the subject of another thread. But I will say this: I don't think the family is "breaking down" at all. Far from it. The definition of family is expanding; not contracting.
Ringo

And that is why you will never see the change you want. You fail to see the root of the problem. And the problem is people who are rotten to the core. This isn't another topic, the two are tied. And maybe the definition of family is expanding. But we aren't talking about gay rights. That is a topic for another thread.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

And that is why you will never see the change you want. You fail to see the root of the problem. And the problem is people who are rotten to the core. This isn't another topic, the two are tied. And maybe the definition of family is expanding. But we aren't talking about gay rights. That is a topic for another thread.

That's an excellent point.

This page provides interesting statistics:

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

Emphasis mine.

 

[Ringo84]

And straw purchases are already illegal.

The link I posted said that straw purchases can be illegal.

So, they had people running it.

...but they're underfunded and understaffed.

Nope. Isn't the freedom to as one sees fit with one's own property a wonderful thing? any paperwork."

That depends on what you intend to do with that property.

Yes, I do. I dismiss anything that the soda banner says out of hand.

Well I'm definitely no fan of banning big sodas myself. My point in providing the link to that was less Bloomberg's statistic than PolitiFact's analysis of how background checks regulated.

It depends on what you define as my group.

Then it would sound as though you perhaps don't agree completely with everyone with whom you may politically associate yourself.

Like I said, the ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians since 1986.

And the NRA supports - or at least used to support - bans on fully automatic weapons:

One asked which kinds of weapons Keene thought should be illegal. Keene answered “fully automatic weapons,” which are already illegal for private citizens.

NRA President David Keene tells Harvard University group he doesn't expect filibuster from gun rights supporters in Senate | masslive.com

I don't know. Why does the government have tens of millions of them?

Dunno, if hunting rifles are so powerful.

umm...they're telling me that I can't dispose of my property as I see fit. If the government thinks a person is safe enough to be allowed to walk around in public, and be trusted, what's with the halfway measures?

Walking around in public is not the same as selling a weapon to someone without first checking who they are or their background.

I pay legislators to sit around and understand laws so that I don't have to spend my time doing that. If they don't like being criticized for dumb laws, then they shouldn't pass dumb laws.

If the laws are dumb, fix them instead of complaining about them!

You're arguing that gun banners don't want to ban guns in the face of eighty years of legislative history to the contrary.

I asked if I have advocated banning guns.
Ringo

 

[Ringo84]

Without knowing who owns what, how do you implement a universal background system?

If the government can't prove that an individual acquired a firearm after a universal background check law was imposed, how can the government prove that an individual violated it? Without mandatory gun registration, a universal background check law is unenforceable.

Bear in mind, that you cannot penalize criminals for failing to register their firearms, because it violates their protection against self incrimination.

So, basically, the government could only enforce a universal background check law against people who follow the law, don't commit crimes, and aren't inclined to commit crimes, so, what's the point of it?

Licensed gun dealers have been performing background checks for decades, and there has never been a registry.
Ringo

 

[tulc]

Nope.

Don't make me beg dude, 'cause I will if I have too!
tulc(isn't above whining either!)