turtlespeed 212
Recommended Posts
kallend 1,935
QuoteQuoteWe could start by requiring a NICS check for all transfers, including between private individuals.
Those laws should be made at the state level as they already are in many states.
If a state wants to make that a law, I have no problems with that. Sale of private property between private individuals should not (in my opinion) be overseen by any branch of the government, but should a state decide that they should make a law regarding said transfers, that is of the powers "reserved to the states or the people."
33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state.
Which is why it needs to be federal.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,935
Quote
I'd go along with a law to ban it. (You did, of course, refer to making it trivially easy for disqualified persons from getting hold of firearms) We could start by requiring a NICS check for all transfers, including between private individuals.
NICS not needed for those who hold a permit to carry
I'm OK with that as long as the CCW requires a background check (which it doesn't in all states).
Non uniform laws (and too many of them) are a big part of the problem.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteWe could start by requiring a NICS check for all transfers, including between private individuals.
Those laws should be made at the state level as they already are in many states.
If a state wants to make that a law, I have no problems with that. Sale of private property between private individuals should not (in my opinion) be overseen by any branch of the government, but should a state decide that they should make a law regarding said transfers, that is of the powers "reserved to the states or the people."
33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state.
Which is why it needs to be federal.
There is a Federal Law against that though.
You can't get the CCW with a Felony Record.
Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!
So, start being safe, first!!!
kallend 1,935
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe could start by requiring a NICS check for all transfers, including between private individuals.
Those laws should be made at the state level as they already are in many states.
If a state wants to make that a law, I have no problems with that. Sale of private property between private individuals should not (in my opinion) be overseen by any branch of the government, but should a state decide that they should make a law regarding said transfers, that is of the powers "reserved to the states or the people."
33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state.
Which is why it needs to be federal.
There is a Federal Law against that though.
You can't get the CCW with a Felony Record.
Matt
If the CCW REQUIRES a background check, that would be fine. The federal govt imposes no rules on issuance of CCW permits, though, and the requirements vary from state to state.
Lack of uniformity IS one of the problems.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rhaig 0
Quote
33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state.
Which is why it needs to be federal.
which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"??
--
Rob
Rob
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
I'd go along with a law to ban it. (You did, of course, refer to making it trivially easy for disqualified persons from getting hold of firearms) We could start by requiring a NICS check for all transfers, including between private individuals.
NICS not needed for those who hold a permit to carry
I'm OK with that as long as the CCW requires a background check (which it doesn't in all states).
Non uniform laws (and too many of them) are a big part of the problem.
Ah yes
A solution in search of a problem
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
DARK 0
Quote
Well, considering what he and his stand for - yeah - pretty much.
ESPECIALLY since he is representing the group that so vehemently tries to promote anti gun laws.
His record shows that he is in favour of stable law abiding citizens owning guns and being as free with those legally held guns as possible. Some facts
He has said
QuoteThe reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals
Dosn't sound very anti-gun to me, in fact it sounds like something that everyone on the planet should agree with.
Quotethe only legislation the president has signed since he took office in 2008 has expanded gun laws, allowing loaded guns in national parks and unloaded weapons stored in luggage on Amtrak trains.
QuoteSix months after the Jan. 8, 2011 shooting in Tuscon, Ariz. that left six dead and several others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the White House said the attorney general had formed working groups in the Justice department to identify “common-sense measures” to prevent another mass shooting while respecting gun rights.
He also said
Quotenot just of gun violence, but violence at every level, on every step, looking at everything we can do to reduce violence and keep our children safe — from improving mental health services for troubled youth — to instituting more effective community policing strategies
Again common sense, noble, infallible goals, nothing to suggest he dosn't think anyone should ever be allowed guns.
And so on and so forth, common sense rhetoric with very little action in either direction, well actually no action in the anti gun direction since being president only action which widened gun owners rights not limited them.
Finally
QuoteThe president’s slim record on guns has earned him harsh criticism from both sides. The Brady Project, which supports strong gun controls, branded his first term a “failure,” while the National Rifle Association said (pdf) that Obama “has a long history of trying to regulate, restrict and ban your Second Amendment rights out of existence.”
So he really can't win. Your own ridiculous entrenchments on both sides prevents action of any sort and nobody wins and people continue to die but you keep going with your cheap digs and one liners they are really helping your country fix the mess its created for itself.
Shotgun 1
QuoteQuoteOn Nightline last night, Barbara Walters was interviewing the Obamas, and while discussing how one of their daughters is getting to the dating age... I'm paraphrasing here, but the President said that one of the benefits of winning re-election was getting to continue Secret Service so that there would be men with guns around at all times (to protect the girls).
Walters quickly interrupted him and changed the subject. Probably wasn't something he had intended to say, and he seemed to be half-joking, but I thought it was an interesting remark.
How delightfully hypocritical of a liberal.
Well, I don't know if he's being a hypocrite or not. Has he commented on the idea of having armed security guards at schools? I'm curious what his response is to the NRA press conference, but I haven't seen anything.
kallend 1,935
QuoteQuote
33 states do not have such a law. Which makes the other 17 effectively useless since a disqualified person just goes out of state.
Which is why it needs to be federal.
which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"??
Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution.
In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history.
Seems a fairly obvious problem to me.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Shotgun 1
QuoteQuoteQuoteOn Nightline last night, Barbara Walters was interviewing the Obamas, and while discussing how one of their daughters is getting to the dating age... I'm paraphrasing here, but the President said that one of the benefits of winning re-election was getting to continue Secret Service so that there would be men with guns around at all times (to protect the girls).
Walters quickly interrupted him and changed the subject. Probably wasn't something he had intended to say, and he seemed to be half-joking, but I thought it was an interesting remark.
How delightfully hypocritical of a liberal.
Well, I don't know if he's being a hypocrite or not. Has he commented on the idea of having armed security guards at schools? I'm curious what his response is to the NRA press conference, but I haven't seen anything.
Just wanted to correct myself on one thing. I happened to catch the beginning of this interview again and realized that it was actually recorded before the Newtown shootings, then postponed and played the day after Christmas. Which doesn't change what the President said about his daughters being protected by guns, but it takes away my own surprise at the seemingly inappropriate comment (which I thought was) so soon after the shootings.
QuoteI pay plenty of tax, probably a lot more than you. However, consider this a user fee: gun users should pay the cost of protecting the public from guns.
And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars, and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program, and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs.
Or, perhaps we could let the law-abiding owners of these different forms of property bear the cost of securing their own possessions, while letting criminals pay for the costs associated with their actions.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
kallend 1,935
QuoteQuoteI pay plenty of tax, probably a lot more than you. However, consider this a user fee: gun users should pay the cost of protecting the public from guns.
And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars, and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program, and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs.
Or, perhaps we could let the law-abiding owners of these different forms of property bear the cost of securing their own possessions, while letting criminals pay for the costs associated with their actions.
Blues,
Dave
I'd be OK with mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,909
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars,
>and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program,
>and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs.
In many cases they do. In California, for example, the Highway Patrol is funded by the Motor Vehicle Account which in turn gets most of its money from vehicle registration and driver license fees.
>and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program,
>and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs.
In many cases they do. In California, for example, the Highway Patrol is funded by the Motor Vehicle Account which in turn gets most of its money from vehicle registration and driver license fees.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI pay plenty of tax, probably a lot more than you. However, consider this a user fee: gun users should pay the cost of protecting the public from guns.
And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars, and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program, and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs.
Or, perhaps we could let the law-abiding owners of these different forms of property bear the cost of securing their own possessions, while letting criminals pay for the costs associated with their actions.
Blues,
Dave
I'd be OK with mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners.
How would that reduce crimes? Is the theory that law-abiding gun owners would implement greater security measures if doing so got them a discount on their premiums?
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
kallend 1,935
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI pay plenty of tax, probably a lot more than you. However, consider this a user fee: gun users should pay the cost of protecting the public from guns.
And car owners should pay the cost of protecting the public from getaway cars, and boat owners should pay the cost of the coast guard's drug interdiction program, and homeowners should pay the cost of cleaning up suburban meth labs.
Or, perhaps we could let the law-abiding owners of these different forms of property bear the cost of securing their own possessions, while letting criminals pay for the costs associated with their actions.
Blues,
Dave
I'd be OK with mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners.
How would that reduce crimes? Is the theory that law-abiding gun owners would implement greater security measures if doing so got them a discount on their premiums?
Blues,
Dave
Over 300,000 guns stolen each year from "law abiding gun owners" according to the FBI. Those guns, ipso facto, become illegal and in the hands of criminals.
Making "law abiding gun owners" 100% responsible for their guns might them take gun security seriously.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
You just want to impose draconian prices on poor people who need guns more than anyone else. Think about that poor single mother of 10, struggling to make it to the check cashing place and back home after cashing her welfare check. How is she going to afford insurance to own the gun she so desperately needs to protect her children and survive until the middle of the month?
kallend 1,935
QuoteYou just want to impose draconian prices on poor people who need guns more than anyone else. Think about that poor single mother of 10, struggling to make it to the check cashing place and back home after cashing her welfare check. How is she going to afford insurance to own the gun she so desperately needs to protect her children and survive until the middle of the month?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,909
>How is she going to afford insurance to own the gun she so desperately needs to
>protect her children and survive until the middle of the month?
True. There are a lot of people out there with a paucity of weapons; heck, that mother of 10 will have, on average, only 9 guns in her house if she lives in the US. What if a helicopter tries to take her out and she lacks the larger caliber long weapons needed to down it? Imagine that poor woman trying to stop a rhino charge with nothing but .22's and .38's.
>protect her children and survive until the middle of the month?
True. There are a lot of people out there with a paucity of weapons; heck, that mother of 10 will have, on average, only 9 guns in her house if she lives in the US. What if a helicopter tries to take her out and she lacks the larger caliber long weapons needed to down it? Imagine that poor woman trying to stop a rhino charge with nothing but .22's and .38's.
Well, considering what he and his stand for - yeah - pretty much.
ESPECIALLY since he is representing the group that so vehemently tries to promote anti gun laws.
Look at it this way - That would be like ALGORE dumping gasoline into the lake at the same time preaching against pollution.
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites