Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have written my 2 US Senators and 1 US Congressman and told them I support closing the loophole for sales at gunshows, but am opposed to a national database, opposed to a ban on "assault weapons", and opposed to a ban on large ammo clips because data doesn't support any correlation to these "assault" weapons and homicides. I also told them I support the NRA position to arm schools, but suggested that teachers have stun guns or tasers and the principal be allowed a firearm of his selection but must also meet the requirements of a top secret security clearance like sky marshalls, which would include an annual lifestyle polygraph.
There is no gun show loophole.
A private citizen can sell a firearm to a private citizen at a gun show, at a city park, or in the parking lot of a police department. It doesn't matter.
However, if a private citizen sells firearms as part of his livelihood, then he is required by law to obtain an FFL. As an FFL, he is required to conduct a background check on anyone who purchases a firearm from him. If he is engaged in the business of selling firearms without an FFL, he is in violation of the law.
In order to know if someone has sold a firearm illegally, wouldn't you have to register all guns and all gun owners?
The burden of proof is always on the government to show that someone has broken a law.
If the government has no way of knowing who has what gun, then they have no way to prove that someone transferred it illegally, unless they know who has them all.
Of course one need only look to relatively recent history in California to see where registration is likely to lead...
Since 1993, the Brady law has required background checks on gun sales to private citizens. However, background checks can only be performed by licensed gun dealers and its estimated that forty percent of gun sales are done without a background check. If we are to keep guns out of the hands of unstable individuals, isn't it time we demand 100 percent screening?
Would this absolute right to own weapons extend to radioactive "dirty" bombs? Rocket launchers? Machine guns?No. The founding fathers saw no limits on owning a weapon except the ability to pay for it. That should have never changed. The 2nd amendment has no limits on who can own a weapon, what kind of weapon, or how many. There is no need for background checks when everyone is legally permitted under the constitution to own weapons.
If we want to stop the misuse of weapons we need to make the punishment for misuse serious enough to detour those who would do that and strong enough to stop them if they ever do from ever doing it again. instead of trying to dismantle the 2nd amendment we need to make the laws for abuse stronger.
I suggest the following,. If anyone uses a weapon to commit a crime cut both their hands off and put them through Singapore caning. They will never again use a weapon for criminal activity. Properly punish the abuser, and stop trying to limit our rights and freedoms.
[serious];62823813 said:Would this absolute right to own weapons extend to radioactive "dirty" bombs? Rocket launchers? Machine guns?
As long as you don't think any random guy should be able to buy a nuke, you are in favor of some type of regulation. Then it just becomes a question of where to draw that line and how to enforce it.
The most vociferous Second Amendment advocates are deeply suspicious of the U.S. government and often sound as if they are standing poised to launch a "mouse that roared" rebellion if anyone crosses them.
Any proposal perceived to weaken the Second Amendment becomes an obstacle in their goal to overthrow the U.S. government....if they deem it necessary.
There are militiae out here in the heartland....as well as militia wannabes.
Ah, I think you mean the 2nd Amendment. As for the 4th Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches.
Sounds like a good idea, and quite consistent with the Second Amendment:
Governments reglate all sorts of things, and they are empowered to enforce those regulations, whether it be confirming a minimum age to buy things like alcohol or cigarettes or to make sure one is qualified to own certain dangerous items like firearms.
Good point. And I can't imagine any reason why a reasonable, law abiding gun owner would have a problem with that.
I live on the east coast....care to elaborate?
A2SG, we register cars and no one is calling for cars to be confiscated, so forgive me if I ignore paranoia....
It doesn't prevent people from using them in crimes, either.
Registration does make people responsible for how their guns are used. If someone's gun is used in the commission of a crime, shouldn't we hold them responsible? Why are some gun owners so afraid of responsibility?
Why?
If if it was stolen, the gun owner is the victim of a crime. Do you want to hold rape victims responsible, too?
If it's a matter of knowing who can be trusted, all public service figures should have to submit to a universal background check by law.
If it is stolen then you report it as stolen and you are released from liability. Why is this a problem?
As for guns, what constitutes not being qualified to possess a firearm?
Dinging one hit and saying that person isn't entitled can lead to anyone else being deemed unfit.
Someone who's had a restraining order filed against them, as a for instance, can be prevented from having a firearm just due to that.
And that restraining order could have been filed by an ex who had an ax to grind and wanted the last word in a bad breakup. It doesn't mean the person named is dangerous. It just means after the fact that someone claimed they needed them to be held at bay by law, allows the inference.
I'm also against gun registration.
As we see in NYC, if the government wants to confiscate guns they know exactly where to go to get them. And if you don't have those listed in your name at your address, who do you think they're taking with them ?
And what if one doesn't notice it's stolen?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?