Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Stugein

Members
  • Posts

    1,811
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stugein

  1. Yeah I guess I'm with y'all there. The problem is that giving a hard definition necessarily creates ways to skirt that definition. Right now we've got guys that probably sell dozens or hundreds of guns annually but aren't "in the business". But the minute you say "Look, if you transfer ownership of more than X guns per year then you're 'in the business'" you get sued by people who want to give their guns to their kids. Like you say it shouldn't be vague, but it has to be open-ended enough to disinclude actual private good faith transfers while catching those guys who are selling guns for income but staying just on the outside edge of licensing requirements. I'm not sure how you go about doing that.
  2. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our FWIW as a gun owner, second amendment supporter, and life member of the NRA, I don't really have a problem with anything in there.
  3. The difference in attitude when it's a protest against or for something that you don't sympathize with is striking. Also I think "yeehadist" is my favorite thing to come out of this whole debacle. Early frontrunner for word of the year 2016.
  4. The PLCAA isn't terrible in spirit, but in some cases like those detailed in the article it is applied terribly. It probably should be rethought so that it continues to protect the good, conscientious dealers and manufacturers while not allowing those outliers to hide under its umbrella.
  5. Corrupt FFLs and shady dealers are one of the major problems and something that needs to be a bigger focus of any reform talks. Over half of all the guns used in crimes can be traced by to just around 1% of licensed gun dealers. That 1% is tacitly responsible for a lot of heartache.
  6. Yeah if you're selling a gun pretty much at the rate of one every week, you're a gun dealer. You should be licensed as such.
  7. I've thought about it. I've never had to defend myself or others in a life or death moment. I've never been in any sort of live fire situation. I'd like to think I'd act right under pressure but who knows? Maybe I freeze. Maybe I panic. Maybe unlucky me is the first victim and I never even get a chance to draw my gun. But there's still a chance that I keep my head about me, react, and maybe save a life of two. I'd rather have a chance at life than a guarantee of being at the mercy of the bad guy.
  8. The militia language isn't a qualifier. I thought we were past that. :/The background check should be a given. The system needs to be improved and checks should be both as fast and as accurate as possible. The mental health check..yes but it has to be done carefully. Potentially violent issues should be identified, but not everyone who seeks counseling or takes certain meds should be barred.
  9. I was just pointing out that there are limits. Lots of limits. Just like those ignorant pro-gun folk who think every proposed new law is a precursor to the government coming to take their guns in the dark of night, you have a subset of anti-gun folk who make it sound like firearm ownership in America is an unregulated free-for-all with people buying guns unchecked down at 7-11. The fact is that in many places exercising your 2nd amendment right is exceedingly burdensome. And yes, in some states it's probably way too easy. It's just harder I think for people to come to an understanding on some middle ground if we aren't honest about where we are now.
  10. It's already there for the 2nd far more-so than any other right. People would flip their **** if they had to go through the same stuff gun owners do in order to exercise other rights.
  11. Guns are used defensively many thousands of times each year. They may prevent more death and injury than they cause. And I only say "may" because there's really no way to say how many of the crimes they prevent would've resulting in injury or death. You generally just don't hear about them because sadly a crime prevented and a life saved doesn't often make for big headlines.
  12. I hear you, I guess I just don't see buying another gun as an indicator of mental illness. Heck, I've bought 3 over the last 4 months but that's only because NJ's process is so slow otherwise I would've bought all 3 in the same month. But who knows. Maybe instead of disallowing it, doing like you said and engaging in a friendly check-in. I don't see the harm in it, unless it becomes abused to harass gun owners. You know what is an indicator though, is multiple gun sales. I've read that a pretty high percent of the guns used in crimes were originally purchased as part of a multi-gun purchase (a person buying 3+ guns at the same time). Seems that often those types of purchases are a hint that someone is making straw purchases or intending to buy guns for resale without doing the diligence that an FFL does. Maybe on top of the background checks that exist, there needs to be an added layer of scrutiny and tracking when someone is attempting to purchases several guns in a single go.
  13. To this I would ask; if someone has been determined, through whatever means available (background checks, mental health checks, character references, etc.), to be a non-threat to general public safety and not part of an excluded class (felons, etc.) and is thus legally allowed to purchase guns, does him buying an additional gun (or 3) over a given number of weeks or months make him somehow inherently more dangerous? In what way? What safety gap are we closing with such a limit?
  14. Oh I agree absolutely. I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't even discuss incremental solutions, only that people who may be afraid about the long term consequences of certain restrictions shouldn't be automatically dismissed because $dramatic_action against guns "would never happen". The fear isn't completely unjustified. It still shouldn't stop us from striving to find sensible solutions that will ultimately save lives.
  15. I hear you. I guess I just don't find it as unlikely given how rights like the 4th have eroded over the years as exception upon exception keep being piled on. And how "irrational" fears like "registration leads to confiscation" have been to demonstrated to actually happen (on much smaller scales of course; New York for example). "Everything is banned and our guns are being taken by force" doesn't have to happen. They just have to decide that 15 round magazines are too big, then every gun must be registered, then 10 rounds are too big, then nobody really needs a semi-automatic to hunt or for home defense, then 5 rounds are too big, then you need permission from your local police chief to buy a gun, then nobody needs to carry in public then...over the years it goes on. Yeah, there may never be a time that an "all guns are banned" moment comes, but at some point it won't matter because there won't be any teeth left in the 2nd to pull out. I don't know. I think there are several things we can do today that will help save lives. There are systems that can be improved and laws that can be strengthened. I also think that we as a country suck at getting people help when they need it. I just don't think that further burdening lawful gun owners who by and large aren't the problem solves anything.
  16. You may have misunderstood me. I apologize; I'm not the best at getting my thoughts into text. I didn't say anyone had suggested bans or confiscations. I said that allowing the continued progression of more and more smaller, seemingly innocuous restrictions will erode the freedom to the point, perhaps years in the future, where more dramatic proposals like bans or confiscations won't seem as far-fetched.
  17. Even accepting that, it's not an unreasonable concern. The fear is that allowing continued small incremental restrictions on the right will, over the years, erode it to the point where final more drastic steps (bans, confiscation, etc.) won't be as infeasible any more.
  18. Ehhh...mostly. 1) Close the gun show and private sale loophole - make all sales subject to the laws that exist I'm fine with the idea of this, but it'd be a nightmare to implement. You'd somehow have to open up the NICS, which is already swamped, to the general public. That comes with a whole host of security, privacy, and logistical problems. 2) Waiting periods - there is no reason a gun purchase can't be delayed by 7 days (you wait for online purchases to be shipped, right?) I don't believe waiting periods really affect gun violence at all. The only waiting period should be how long it takes all of the appropriate background checks to clear. The scenario of someone in an emotional rage running out, getting licensed, going to the gun shop, purchasing a gun, clearing background checks, then running to whatever $person they're still mad at and killing them the same day is largely mythical. And waiting periods beyond the execution of the background check make no sense at all if the purchaser already owns firearms. 3) Trigger locks - require all firearms stored in the home to have trigger locks (yes, a "hollow" law since you can't enforce it until something goes wrong) I'm totally down with requiring guns be sold with locks, so long that there isn't a usage requirement. They should be absolutely available to everyone, especially in cases where maybe someone can't afford a safe or other secure storage (though really if you can't afford to store your guns securely you probably shouldn't be buying them in the first place). 4) Background checks - more thorough, since the 7 day waiting period makes it easier to go deep I think what needs to happen is that money needs to be spent to update the NICS infrastructure to handle more comprehensive checking, faster. I also think we need to mandate reporting requirements to the states into the federal system. Some states currently may delay reporting of arrests, charges, etc. to NICS which means that a given check may be incomplete for a certain time after an incident occurs. That needs to change. NICS should be updated as near real-time as logistically possible. There's also a failure in the federal background check law where if a background check doesn't complete in 3 days the seller may move forward with the sale (this is how the south Carolina shooter was able to purchase a gun illegally despite having pending criminal charges). One; the NICS shouldn't take that long. Two; if there is a problem that delays the check the default action shouldn't be "move ahead with the sale". It should be "sale denied" and it should then be the responsibility of the purchaser to clear up whatever the problem is with the FBI and NICS admins. Basically the NICS system really needs to be improved. 5) Training - require all firearm purchasers to show proof that they attended a training course conducted at their local firing range (yes, there will need to be standards approved by the govt); only one training course is required, not for each firearm I'm down for this as long as the training is reasonable. It should be set federally so the standard is the same everywhere and it should be focused on safety and proper handling. If you leave it up to the states you'd have a myriad of wildly varying requirements and states like NJ would probably require you put five rounds into a dime-sized circle at 300 yards just so they don't have to approve anyone.
  19. My wife went back to work this year so nobody is home during the day any more to receive our tickets. I'm unreasonably nervous about this.
  20. Well I opted to get moved over to 212. We'll see how that goes.
  21. Yeah. I mean, I liked my seats so I'm a little bummed. But for this I can be inconvenienced a bit. I also asked the rep to put in a suggestion for me; told them to put mics in the band box that play over the loudspeakers and to cut the mics on when we score so everyone hears the band rather than playing the canned/sing-along version of the fight song.
  22. So I was given 3 possible options. Move down from 211 to 111, move over one section to 212, or move around to 240 (price increase). I'm thinking 212 is my best bet.
  23. I'm in 211. The rep is supposed to be calling me back today to discuss my relocation options. I like being in the end-zone. I don't want to move to a corner, but I don't want to move too low in the end-zones either cause it makes it tough to see the far end of the field. I'd be willing to move to the sides if it was inside the 40's but that won't happen; especially since I have 4 seats in a row. Edit: Typo, I'm in 211 not 111.
  24. I just got an e-mail that my seats are being moved to make room for the band moving back to the lower level. I like where my seats are.
×
×
  • Create New...