Stugein

We don't like, break everything back out and full on tailgate, but a bunch of us hang out to talk about the game and celebrate/commiserate while letting traffic clear a bit.

My younger son.

Depends on when I leave from NJ. I'm at the whim of the hours of the pretzel joints. It's most likely yes but I didn't wanna say for sure in case something screws up.

I'm in! Cornhole boards, beer cooler, maybe soft pretzels!

NFL.com reporting now too.. https://www.nfl.com/news/carson-wentz-trade-commanders-acquire-colts-qb

Beer, some non-alcohol options, cornhole for sure. Will check back in with other stuff later in the week.

I will be there. Can't bring cornhole but I will have beers for everyone.

Can't wait to see y'all again! I don't have RZ parking for this one so I'll be coming light, but I'll still be bringing the cornhole boards and a cooler of fancy beers to share with everyone. :)

And that all sounds great, but the fear is that the people in charge won't be as reasonable as you are. Anti-control folks' fears can be all reasonably accommodated for; you're absolutely right. But that doesn't change the concerns that they won't be and that, if they are, the next person that comes along doesn't just turn it on it's head on a whim. Checks won't be completed in days/weeks. They will stall. The fee will be hundreds of dollars and go up every year because something something funding/tax/spend/excuse. Some nigh impenetrable barrier will be placed on the system so most people couldn't use it, suppressing private transfers. Hurdle after hurdle will be put in place to ensure as many people are kept from using the system as possible. And they aren't unreasonable fears; we see it today in many states with regard to other aspects of gun ownership. If someone proposed a system with a low bar to entry where private background checks could be performed quickly and cheaply with solid privacy protections in place then we'd probably get all but the staunchest anti-government gun hoarder types on board with the idea. But to allay those very reasonable concerns of abuse it'd have to be made (no pun intended) bullet proof. And that's the rub.

I think the problem is less about the what and more about the "how". I'm all for background checks for private sales/transfers, but the process would have to somehow be protected against becoming burdensome, intentionally or otherwise. It would have to be either free to perform the check or only be a nominal administrative fee. You would either have to open NICS up to everyone to perform checks (prone to abuse and privacy violations) or let private sellers initiate a NICS check through a local FFL in which case the FFL would need to be reimbursed for their costs. The thing that worries me are anti-gun folk getting a workable private background check system approved and running, then making it impossible for anyone to actually use (exorbitant fees, unreachable hurdles/requirements, etc.) in order to suppress private transfer entirely. It's the problem we are currently struggling with here in NJ; guns are allowed, carry permits are allowed, licenses are issued, etc. but the requirements are so onerous that relatively few people are able to actually exercise their rights and it only gets worse here every year. That's, I think, the core fear of universal background checks; that it will be used as an avenue to back-door restrictions as we can't trust that whoever is administering such a program will act in good faith.

I get that, yeah. Watching events unfold on video after the fact isn't the same as in the heat of the moment. At the end of the day the dad shouldn't have initiated violence.

I'm of 2 minds about that one. Yeah, he was attacked. If he had pulled and shot, then I'd say it was a bad situation but it was self defense. But as soon as the gun was pulled the attacker backed off. Showing the weapon was clearly enough to stop the attack. But after the attacker backed off then the dude shot him. I don't get how you can still feel deathly threatened when you're holding someone at gun point who is walking away. I am generally OK with Stand Your Ground type laws, but I don't think it was employed correctly in this instance. The man should not have shot; it wasn't justified IMO.

I can appreciate where you're coming from. The problem is that Dont Taze Me Bro is a good guy who follows the law and wouldn't do that. The dink that wants to shoot up an art festival doesn't care. Nobody is made safer by telling Dont Taze Me Bro he isn't allowed to carry outside of his home, or that he can only have 10 bullets. To be legal in NJ we have to go through multiple layers of background checks, fingerprinting, mental health history reviews, character references, and other red tape. In many cases it takes months to legally qualify for and purchase a gun. And even after navigating and passing all of that, if you're the cleanest, most well adjusted and competent gun owner, we have a de facto ban on carrying (you can transport the gun, cased and unloaded, in your car to use at your nearest approved range which could be an hour's drive away, just don't stop for gas or you're an instant felon). On top of that we already have low magazine limits (which just recently got made even lower; I now have 6 months to get rid of my standard sized 15 rd. magazines or risk jail), and all the other feature restrictions, ammo restrictions, and "assault weapon" bans that everyone clamors for as "common sense". Despite all of this we have some of the most violent cities in the country with depressing rates of gun violence and clowns like the ones at the art festival this past week are still able to do what they're going to do. It doesn't exactly fill one with faith that enacting the same at the federal level would have an appreciable effect if the underlying causes of the violence aren't addressed. There's no 100% solution to the problem. Economic inequality, gang activity, the war on drugs, lax enforcement of existing state and federal regulations, racist social policies, incomplete and poorly updated NICS databases, and a myriad of other deficiencies all contribute to creating environments that are conducive to gun violence. Until we address the core faults that allow a culture of violence to fester in our cities, no amount of specific device restrictions or new controls are going to stem the bleeding. Telling Dont Taze Me Bro he isn't allowed to carry a gun isn't saving anyone's lives.

You're right. I'm sure if NJ's super strict laws were enacted at the federal level there's no way these guys would've had guns.

The fun part is that here in NJ we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country and they just recently made them even stricter. I'm absolutely shocked that the shooter in this incident didn't follow them. It's almost like someone who would go out to murder people doesn't care about the laws. Crazy. :|