The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

That is one thing I've never understood is what is the big deal of making background checks mandatory for private sales at gun shows?  Or simply not allowing private sales of guns and channeling that through gun dealers/brokers. 

I'll tell you the reason the gun nuts don't want them.  Please note I'm not saying this is my opinion.  Only the argument I have heard used.

 

If every gun transaction got a background check, then theoretically the government could/would have a list of guns each person has.  Also, for it to be effective, the government would have to require each person to register the guns they currently have.  After all, if they didn't know I have gun serial number 123 how would they enforce me doing a background check before I sold it to my neighbor?  So now the government has a reasonably accurate list of most every gun in the nation and it's location.  Doesn't sound like a huge deal right?

 

Now the Dems get control of Congress and the WH.  They decide the population should not have guns.  They now how a list to go house to house and disarm the populace, by force if necessary.  If the governmnent didn't have this list, it would be a lot harder for them to confiscate all the guns.

 

*****Again, for emphasis, I'm not saying this is my view.  Only the view of those who are against mandatory background checks for all gun sales and transfers.

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

Did they hunt in militia's back then?

 

 

Sorry but I always get frustrated when people say only guns for hunting should be allowed when the 2nd doesn't saying anything about guns being necessary to put food on the table.  My other favorite is the "well then you should only be able to have the weapons they had in that era."  Two things about that argument.  One, I can't wait to line my front yard with cannons.  Two, then free speech should also only apply to means of communication from that era.  Bring back the old style printing press.  And make sure all of your messages are only delivered by horse.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

33 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'll tell you the reason the gun nuts don't want them.  Please note I'm not saying this is my opinion.  Only the argument I have heard used.

 

If every gun transaction got a background check, then theoretically the government could/would have a list of guns each person has.  Also, for it to be effective, the government would have to require each person to register the guns they currently have.  After all, if they didn't know I have gun serial number 123 how would they enforce me doing a background check before I sold it to my neighbor?  So now the government has a reasonably accurate list of most every gun in the nation and it's location.  Doesn't sound like a huge deal right?

 

Now the Dems get control of Congress and the WH.  They decide the population should not have guns.  They now how a list to go house to house and disarm the populace, by force if necessary.  If the governmnent didn't have this list, it would be a lot harder for them to confiscate all the guns.

 

*****Again, for emphasis, I'm not saying this is my view.  Only the view of those who are against mandatory background checks for all gun sales and transfers.

 

 

But most gun dealers (talking current) make you fill out a form, where you are listing your name, address, etc., running a background check at the federal level.  Then if paying by credit card, which most people do, for the gun/rifle you are purchasing, have a record of what was purchased.  So, a lot of your information is already being collected and I'm going to assume stored in some capacity.  

 

It might not be the serial number, but you see what I'm getting at.  And I see what you are saying too.  At least for now, based on minimal info collected/stored, if it ever got to the point where the government would try to seize ones guns, people could get around it by lying and saying they attended a gun show in X location, X years ago and sold it privately and don't remember the persons name and they bought it with cash.  

 

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

They did in the South.

 

That wasn't really what i was going for

 

51 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Sorry but I always get frustrated when people say only guns for hunting should be allowed when the 2nd doesn't saying anything about guns being necessary to put food on the table. 

 

I know, I'm with you. It was supposed to be a joke. Didn't go over very well

 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

So, a lot of your information is already being collected and I'm going to assume stored in some capacity.  

 

 

Nope. Must be destroyed.

 

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-universal-background-checks-cant-lead-to-a-federal-gun-registry

 

Quote

Here’s what happens next: The buyer leaves the store with the firearm. The NICS system destroys all records of running a check on that buyer within 24 hours.⁷ On the 4473 form, the dealer marks that the buyer passed the NICS check, writes down the transaction number and the serial number of the gun that was sold, and files it away, where it must be kept in a paper file by law for 20 years.⁸

Thus, there is only one official record of the sale, and it resides in the individual gun dealer’s files. 

 

The federal government is not allowed to track gun purchases on a nationwide level.

 

It's part of the reason we have such trouble with identifying bad gun dealers. Research suggests there are few, but they are responsible for most of the funneling of guns to people who aren't supposed to have them.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Just now, tshile said:

 

Nope. Must be destroyed.

 

https://www.thirdway.org/memo/why-universal-background-checks-cant-lead-to-a-federal-gun-registry

 

 

The federal government is not allowed to track gun purchases on a nationwide level.

 

It's part of the reason we have such trouble with identifying bad gun dealers. Research suggests there are few, but they are responsible for most of the funneling of guns to people who aren't supposed to have them.

 

Didn't know about the background checks being destroyed at the federal level.  But, part of my point was made, the gun dealership has records and has to keep them 20 years.  Are those records available to local, state or federal law enforcement any time the request them?  Or is that only if the gun dealer is willing to turn them over?  Or only in the event of a crime and with a warrant?  

 

More curious than anything.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

But most gun dealers (talking current) make you fill out a form, where you are listing your name, address, etc., running a background check at the federal level.  Then if paying by credit card, which most people do, for the gun/rifle you are purchasing, have a record of what was purchased.  So, a lot of your information is already being collected and I'm going to assume stored in some capacity.  

 

It might not be the serial number, but you see what I'm getting at.  And I see what you are saying too.  At least for now, based on minimal info collected/stored, if it ever got to the point where the government would try to seize ones guns, people could get around it by lying and saying they attended a gun show in X location, X years ago and sold it privately and don't remember the persons name and they bought it with cash.  

 

 

Your second paragraph is their response.  If they bought it somewhere with a paper trail and someone showed up at their house they can say they sold it and are not required to have paperwork for that.  If every sale required a background check, then they would get in trouble if there was no paperwork.  Also, and this is kind of a big error on your part, you seem to be thinking that these people are logical.  Haha.

[tshile]

Just now, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Didn't know about the background checks being destroyed at the federal level.  But, part of my point was made, the gun dealership has records and has to keep them 20 years.  Are those records available to local, state or federal law enforcement any time the request them?  Or is that only if the gun dealer is willing to turn them over?  Or only in the event of a crime and with a warrant?  

 

More curious than anything.  

 

So this is where we start getting into the weeds about what the laws are, vs what the practical implications of them are.

 

Yes - they are stored for 20 years, they are there and available for local law enforcement.

 

But... they're paper records. I don't know that they're required to store them in any specific order. It's certainly not in a database you can easily search. What happens if you want to find Dont Taze Me Bro's purchase and it's sorted by year? Hope you know what year he bought it...

 

There's also rules about how often the ATF can inventory a gun dealer. 

 

Quote

At most, federal agents are allowed to visit gun sellers no more than once every twelve months to ensure compliance with the Gun Control Act of 1968, which established the federal licensing system for firearms dealers and mandates that anyone in the business of selling guns adhere to certain requirements. Any additional inspections require a warrant. 

The once-a-year rule is just the limit to how often the ATF can inspect a gun dealer. The agency’s goal is for its 780 inspectors to visit the country’s 140,000 licensed dealers every three to five years, a target they rarely meet. In 2013, only 42 percent of gun sellers had been inspected in the preceding five years. Last year, just 7 percent of dealers nationwide were inspected.

 

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/gun-store-atf-inspection/

 

If you want to get to them outside of that you're going to need a warrant.

 

It's why the  "enforce the existing laws" mantra from The Right invokes such anger and rage. They are the ones who have created the numerous barriers to tracking, analyzing, and otherwise researching gun crime and gun purchases.

 

They've knee capped the entire system, refuse to change the laws, then stand back and tell the rest of us to "Just enforce the laws already on the books"

 

The sad thing is only part of them do it because they think we're too stupid to know better; a good portion of them are too stupid to know their argument is dumb.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

Your second paragraph is their response.  If they bought it somewhere with a paper trail and someone showed up at their house they can say they sold it and are not required to have paperwork for that.  If every sale required a background check, then they would get in trouble if there was no paperwork.  Also, and this is kind of a big error on your part, you seem to be thinking that these people are logical.  Haha.

 

I'm really just tossing stuff out there.  

[tshile]

@Dont Taze Me Bro

 

If you research the NRA's lobbying over the last 20-30 years, what you'll find is a thorough effort to make enforcing the laws as difficult as possible. They've gone so far as to stonewall appointing a director to the ATF. Budget cuts. Record destruction. Limiting inventorying. Limit research or threatening research funds. 

 

More and more gun stores are popping up everywhere, and the ATF's ability to track anything is being limited more and more.

 

It's why I cannot in good conscious support the NRA. They're actively working to make it harder for us to even have a discussion about guns.

 

What makes me even more irate is that our politicians have just gone along with it. We've allowed the NRA to make gun manufacturers among the strongest voices in the legislative and law enforcement process. It's an incredible example of how wrong our system of governance can go.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Oliver North taking over the NRA.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/oliver-north-named-president-of-the-national-rifle-association/2018/05/07/02cd2742-521c-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Oliver North belongs in jail.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Perfect guy to lead a Death Cult.

[Larry]

4 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Sorry but I always get frustrated when people say only guns for hunting should be allowed when the 2nd doesn't saying anything about guns being necessary to put food on the table.  My other favorite is the "well then you should only be able to have the weapons they had in that era."  Two things about that argument.  One, I can't wait to line my front yard with cannons.  Two, then free speech should also only apply to means of communication from that era.  Bring back the old style printing press.  And make sure all of your messages are only delivered by horse.

 

OTOH, for 200 years, the Second also didn't say anything about Joe Citizen carrying a gun to take the kiddies grocery shopping.  What it said was that the State of Virginia had a right to a state militia.  

 

Nobody tried to claim that Wyatt Earp didn't have the right to ban guns in Tombstone.  

 

And none of the constitutional rights declare that the people cannot strike a balance between individual use of a right, and public safety.  (Just my personal opinion, but I think that something being listed as a right does mean that society has to meet a higher burden, to show that a proposed restriction meets a public need.  But then, I also think that the large number of dead people caused by easy access to instant deadly force successfully demonstrates that there's a public need.)  

[tshile]

I have a question for the people that read the second amendment as:

it allows for a well regulated malitia to have guns to keep a free state

 

what would be the requirement to be in the militia?

what sort of weapons would you allow these members to have, keeping in mind its to keep a free state?

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

On 5/5/2018 at 2:17 PM, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I've said it before but I think the nation as a whole, needs to come to an agreement as to the purpose of the 2nd and it's usefulness.  I honestly think where we are at now is a decent balance, though it could still use some improvement.  There are some that are hard Right that think it is bull**** they can't have heat seeking missiles.  There is also those on the hard Left that think the 2nd should be repealed and all guns confiscated.  But the vast middle needs to come to an understanding.  

 

43 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

OTOH, for 200 years, the Second also didn't say anything about Joe Citizen carrying a gun to take the kiddies grocery shopping.  What it said was that the State of Virginia had a right to a state militia.  

 

Nobody tried to claim that Wyatt Earp didn't have the right to ban guns in Tombstone.  

 

And none of the constitutional rights declare that the people cannot strike a balance between individual use of a right, and public safety.  (Just my personal opinion, but I think that something being listed as a right does mean that society has to meet a higher burden, to show that a proposed restriction meets a public need.  But then, I also think that the large number of dead people caused by easy access to instant deadly force successfully demonstrates that there's a public need.)  

Which is why I made the point quoted above.  The 2nd itself needs to be discussed.  

 

Also, we have already struck a balance though I admit it may need to be adjusted.  People can't have cannons, automatic weapons, grenades, etc.  Arms are already greatly limited when compared to what is available.  And I'm not saying they shouldn't be before someone tries to claim I am saying that.

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Now the FF kinda screwed us by not being more clear on the above line.  The SC has weighed in on it some.  We may not agree with what they said but it is the decision they have made and they seem to have no interest in taking up another case. So that's why I have said we need to decide what the intent of the 2ND is and how applicable it still is.  Then go from there on what people are allowed to have or not have.

 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

6 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Two, then free speech should also only apply to means of communication from that era.  Bring back the old style printing press.  And make sure all of your messages are only delivered by horse.

 

Well, your free speech is your free speech despite the medium in which it is communicated. They didn’t distinguish between what a person said aloud versus what a person wrote with their feather pen and sent via horse courier to the next colony. Technology doesn’t really change that freedom. 

 

Technology dramatically changes the scope of what the 2nd amendment now allows an individual to do

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Well, your free speech is your free speech despite the medium in which it is communicated. They didn’t distinguish between what a person said aloud versus what a person wrote with their feather pen and sent via horse courier to the next colony. Technology doesn’t really change that freedom. 

 

Technology dramatically changes the scope of what the 2nd amendment now allows an individual to do

I disagree.  They didn't mention the tool in either amendment.  But you mean that the people that can now spread hate-speech to millions online instead of just yelling loud enough that their neighbors might here them don't have a different level of danger there?  You don't think the rise of the alt-right and the fact America elected ****ing Trump show that the ability to spread free speech online versus horse courier changes the scope? 

 

I bet more people die from Trump being elected than by the 2nd amendment.  And at the heart of him getting elected was the right of people to say dumb **** unchecked.

[hail2skins]

Couldn't find the thread that was dedicated to this great man (lol) so thought I'd put this news story in here. George should really consider a primary run against Trump in 2020. The gift that keeps on giving:

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-charged-stalking-man-working-trayvon-martin/story?id=54995405

[visionary]

10 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Well, your free speech is your free speech despite the medium in which it is communicated. They didn’t distinguish between what a person said aloud versus what a person wrote with their feather pen and sent via horse courier to the next colony. Technology doesn’t really change that freedom. 

Not sure about that.  There’s some difference between reading about something in the paper much later or someone saying something in private compared to over the radio, on tv, or social media.  There have definitely been new laws and rulings because of the changing technology and we still struggle with some versions of free speech and when to limit it.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

Not sure about that.  There’s some difference between reading about something in the paper much later or someone saying something in private compared to over the radio, on tv, or social media.  There have definitely been new laws and rulings because of the changing technology and we still struggle with some versions of free speech and when to limit it.

 

In what ways is free speech limited in any of these mediums? It has been discussed as some new comes forward but I don't think any of these technological mediums for expressing oneself have changed freedom of speech or the purpose behind the first amendment. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Momma There Goes That Man

[Riggo-toni]

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Riggo-toni]

Only way to stop a bad dog with a gun is...a biscuit.

[visionary]