The Gun Control Debate Thread

[just654]

I liken it to a police officer taking away your keys after pulling you over. You didn't get due process to lose the right to drive home. Suspicion is sufficient. If your behaviors are erratic and dangerous enough... a temporary suspension pending trial seems not out of order.

That jibes with what I understood as well.

 

That is called an illegal purchase. No new law is going to stop that, including up to a Ban of all guns. I was talking about purchasing a legal gun. 

 

And to ur Key to the Car point. Driving is a privilege owning a gun is a right. and you have the right to face the excused and innocent until proven guilty.

[Larry]

On the other topic of getting a gun out of state, in theory and by law, it is hard to do.  Practically, it is one of those things that is relatively easy  and in a state like NY > 2/3 of the guns associated with crime actually come from out of state.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html?_r=0

Seem to recall you posting a study, some time back. About a state (Missouri?) and their gun laws.

Just going from memory, but I think they were looking at a particular category of guns. Along the lines of guns that wind up in police custody, within one month of being purchased.  And the vast majority of such guns were purchased out of state. 

 

Until they changed their gun laws, to "shall issue" for gun purchases. 

 

And then, the majority of such guns were purchased in state. 

[DogofWar1]

Illegal purchases are a whole other can of worms; an underfunded can of worms owned by the ATF.

 

I know a lot of people have a lot of bad feelings about ATF, some of it justified.

 

But ultimately tracking down illegal purchases and transfers is very hard, and even harder with an underfunded agency tasked with it (whether it's the ATF or we give those duties to someone else).

 

It would probably also help to create a mechanism for registering private purchases and transfers (closing the poorly named gun show loophole).

[Larry]

Illegal purchases are a whole other can of worms; an underfunded can of worms owned by the ATF.

 

I know a lot of people have a lot of bad feelings about ATF, some of it justified.

 

But ultimately tracking down illegal purchases and transfers is very hard, and even harder with an underfunded agency tasked with it (whether it's the ATF or we give those duties to someone else).

 

It would probably also help to create a mechanism for registering private purchases and transfers (closing the poorly named gun show loophole).

 

. . . and even harder when lobbying groups are making it illegal to keep records of legal purchases. 

 

Me, one of the things I'd really like to see (and never will) is gun registration.  I suspect that that would help this debate, a lot. 

[Burgold]

That is called an illegal purchase. No new law is going to stop that, including up to a Ban of all guns. I was talking about purchasing a legal gun. 

 

And to ur Key to the Car point. Driving is a privilege owning a gun is a right. and you have the right to face the excused and innocent until proven guilty.

Yep, you do have a right to face your accuser, but I don't think you get on a terrorist watch list for no cause. I suspect you have been engaging in some sketchy behaviors. It's sort of like if the police see you driving erratically. You're swerving all over the road, your breath stinks of alcohol, and you can't talk without slurring. It's possible you ain't drunk. You have a right to challenge the officer's assessment, but for that night you are calling a cab or a friend to get the rest of the way home.

 

Similarly, if you are hanging around on ISIS sites, talking about how you hate Americans, and have been buying hundreds of pounds of chemicals that could be used towards bomb making... I don't mind if the powers that be say... you know what we don't want you buying a gun right now.

 

Now, the powers that be may be wrong. You may be perfectly innocent and upstanding, but for that night... you should be walking home or calling a cab metaphorically speaking.

[just654]

Yep, you do have a right to face your accuser, but I don't think you get on a terrorist watch list for no cause. I suspect you have been engaging in some sketchy behaviors. It's sort of like if the police see you driving erratically. You're swerving all over the road, your breath stinks of alcohol, and you can't talk without slurring. It's possible you ain't drunk. You have a right to challenge the officer's assessment, but for that night you are calling a cab or a friend to get the rest of the way home.

 

Similarly, if you are hanging around on ISIS sites, talking about how you hate Americans, and have been buying hundreds of pounds of chemicals that could be used towards bomb making... I don't mind if the powers that be say... you know what we don't want you buying a gun right now.

 

Now, the powers that be may be wrong. You may be perfectly innocent and upstanding, but for that night... you should be walking home or calling a cab metaphorically speaking.

First let me say I believe if your on this list than you should not be able to buy a gun. But i believe it should be pretty hard to get on this list. I believe it was CNN interviewed someone from the FBI, they asked how do you get on the watch list. Someone just has to make a complaint about you.

 

So lets say i do not like Burglod, I call up the FBI and say Burgold is doing this and that. Guess what your on the watch list. Now in truth your not doing anything wrong. Then how do you get off the watch list? And are you really off the watch list? This guy in FL was off the watch list.

 

A lot times they only have names not SSN or DOBs. what if u have the same name has someone on the list. 

 

I just think there needs to be more thought into the watch list and how u get on it

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I'm preparing to write my dissertation and need some statistical data. Please complete the survey below if you would say that the only solution to bad guys with guns is more good guys with guns.

A. I used my brain and came to this conclusion

B. I didn't use my brain and am parroting what the NRA told me

C. I know it's not true but I say it anyway

I'm studying the percentages of stupid people, ignorant people, or intellectually dishonest people who take advantage of others' stupidity and ignorance.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[TheGreatBuzz]

C

I like to screw with pollsters.

[visionary]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/gop-senators-guns-bipartisan-bill-224453

Group of GOP senators trying for bipartisan guns compromise

 

Working independently of their leadership, a small group of Republican senators is hoping to craft bipartisan legislation that would bar suspected terrorists from buying guns that could actually win enough votes to pass the Senate.

 

GOP Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona are seeking Democratic co-sponsors for a bill that they believe would straddle the line between warring liberals and conservatives. The two sides can’t agree on how to stop suspected terrorists from buying firearms while also allowing people that mistakenly end up on the list of suspected terrorists to make their case to be removed from it.
 

Meanwhile, two other proposals blessed by party leaders are expected to fail early next week — but some senators say the shooting deaths of 49 people in Orlando deserve a solution that can actually pass the Senate.

 

“This is something that could pass,” said a Republican source working directly on the new bill.

 

That remains to be seen. Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota confirmed she is speaking with the Republicans writing the measure, and sources working on the legislation said they hope that moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin of West Virginia will join on as well.

 

Republicans would likely need substantial Democratic backing for the bill to pass as it may not be conservative enough for some hardline Republicans.
“I’ve had several Democrats express interest but we’re still swapping proposals,” Collins said.

Edited June 17, 2016 by visionary

[tshile]

A

Do I get a lollipop for participation?

[Burgold]

A

Do I get a lollipop for participation?

A lollipop? What are you a sucker?

 

#wordplay

[Jumbo]

A

Do I get a lollipop for participation?

 

 

 

 

If there were ever a competitive endeavor where it would be perfectly justifiable to receive an award simply for participation, it should be posting in the tailgate.

[PeterMP]

Illegal purchases are a whole other can of worms; an underfunded can of worms owned by the ATF.

 

I know a lot of people have a lot of bad feelings about ATF, some of it justified.

 

But ultimately tracking down illegal purchases and transfers is very hard, and even harder with an underfunded agency tasked with it (whether it's the ATF or we give those duties to someone else).

 

It would probably also help to create a mechanism for registering private purchases and transfers (closing the poorly named gun show loophole).

 

It isn't just the ATF.  NYC looked at gun stores that they were seeing lots of guns come in from other states and started running stings against those stores to show they were illegally selling guns to help them sue those stores.

 

VA passed a law making the stings illegal  so they could prosecute the NYC people involved in the stings, and the VA attorney general sent a letter to Bloomberg to that affect (Bloomber was mayor of NYC when this all happened).

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/09/AR2007050902573.html

 

Essentially, NYC was able to demonstrate that stores in VA were breaking the law, and VA response was to pass a law making it illegal for NYC to demonstrate the VA stores were breaking the law.

 

(I'm sure they had plenty of encouragement from the gun lobby.)

Edited June 17, 2016 by PeterMP

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

A

Do I get a lollipop for participation?

No. We've been trying it the NRA's way for years now and flooding the country with guns has done little good. It's quite the opposite. The nation with the most good guys with guns (by far) is also the country with the most gun problems (by far). We have twice as many guns per capita than almost anyone else and still one third of all mass shootings occur on US soil. Hmmmm.... Edited June 17, 2016 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Larry]

If there were ever a competitive endeavor where it would be perfectly justifiable to receive an award simply for participation, it should be posting in the tailgate.

Used to be that way.

Grownups went and changed it.

(Pouts).

[Springfield]

I don't often check this thread because I'm very apathetic about th subject, but I just wanted to chime in real quick.

So, the representative who filibustered for 800 hours the other day was doing so just to bring a bill to a vote? And this vote will likely end in an overwhelming amount of nays, right?

What's the point?

[twa]

What's the point?

 

media time

[PeterMP]

I don't often check this thread because I'm very apathetic about th subject, but I just wanted to chime in real quick.

So, the representative who filibustered for 800 hours the other day was doing so just to bring a bill to a vote? And this vote will likely end in an overwhelming amount of nays, right?

What's the point?

 

Leadership doesn't bring bills to a vote to protect members from having to record a vote.  There are some tight Senate races where Republicans would rather not have to go on record as having voted either way.

 

It is easy to say I'm for reasonable gun control and/or I'm for protecting 2nd amendments rights if you don't actually have to vote.  You can actually have it both ways until there is an actual bill that has to be voted on.

 

And I'm not sure at the Senate level you are going to get an overwhelming number of nays.  The last time they brought the close the gun show loop hole up to a vote, it lost by 5 votes.

 

Is it impossible that they can pick up 5 more votes now?

Edited June 17, 2016 by PeterMP

[TheGoodBits]

I actually hate the term gun show loophole because it's not really about gun shows (that's just where said loophole is frequently exploited). Basically, no private party gun sales require background checks. At all. These sales can take place at a gun show or at someone's house. There are online marketplaces dedicated to selling guns between private parties. With 300 million guns in the US, it is assumed that millions of guns exchange hands every year that are not subject to background checks.

This is completely stupid. Even if you ban suspected terrorists from buying a gun, it's absurdly easy for them to acquire a weapon via private party sale. If you want to commit a mass shooting and a background check would flag you (for being a felon, mentally ill, a terrorist, etc), that isn't even a speed bump at this point. Just go on the Internet to any one of dozens of marketplaces, find someone nearby selling your gun of choice, and then go buy it. Piece of cake.

[BornaSkinsFan83]

A yield sign still serves a purpose.

[tshile]

that's why private sales should be required to go through a gun dealer for the purposes of a background check.

they can make an extra 15-20$ for running the check on both parties.

they make money, we close a loop hole that should be closed, no one that's allowed to have guns have had their rights infringed and all you're asking them to do is go through a broker for $15-20.

 

of course I don't see the problem with requiring people to pay $10-$15 for a state photo ID to show when they vote, and 1/2 the people in this country think that's an insane violation of rights, so i basically hate all of you.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm starting to agree with tshile too much. I'm scared.

[TheGoodBits]

that's why private sales should be required to go through a gun dealer for the purposes of a background check.

they can make an extra 15-20$ for running the check on both parties.

they make money, we close a loop hole that should be closed, no one that's allowed to have guns have had their rights infringed and all you're asking them to do is go through a broker for $15-20.

of course I don't see the problem with requiring people to pay $10-$15 for a state photo ID to show when they vote, and 1/2 the people in this country think that's an insane violation of rights, so i basically hate all of you.

The actual cost of an ID doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of why the ID laws are in courts everywhere, but we've got another thread for that and we've beaten that issue to death.

[btfoom]

D

 

More bad guys with guns.  Lots of guns.  Weighs them down so they are more easily caught.

[visionary]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-past-mondays-doomed-votes-gun-control/story?id=39930321

Senate Already Looking Past Monday's Doomed Votes on Gun Control

 

As the Senate prepares to vote Monday on four likely doomed measures to stop terrorists from buying guns, the real work will occur off the chamber’s floor as members from both parties try to bridge their still-wide gap on how best to solve the problem.

 

Both sides are resigned to the likelihood that neither the Democrats’ two proposals nor Republicans’ two will get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate, so they are already laying the groundwork for a legislative Plan B after those proposals fail.

 

“A lot of our members have good ideas for fighting terror and I don’t think Monday’s votes will be the last you’ll see,” a Republican leadership aide said.

 

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is leading talks with a bipartisan slate of senators -- including Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Republicans Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona -- on a bill that would bar people on the Transportation Security Administration’s “no-fly” and “selectee” lists from buying guns, a smaller group than other Democratic bills would ban from getting guns, which Republicans fear is overly broad.

 

It would also provide an appeals process for individuals seeking to contest their blocked purchases, and contains a five year “look-back” proposal that flags the FBI when someone who has been on either watch list within the last five years purchases a gun.

 

“Senator Collins is working closely with Republicans and Democrats to draft a targeted, compromise proposal,” spokeswoman Annie Clark said in an email.

 

A spokeswoman for Heitkamp said the North Dakota senator “believes there needs to be a real bipartisan discussion about what any bill to address what the terror watch list issue would look like so that it actually addresses the issue at hand and gets enough bipartisan support to pass in the Senate.”

 

After the four planned votes were announced Thursday, Democrats and Republicans both touted their respective bills, even as no one seemed confident that any of them would pass.