Assult weapons ban dropped in the Senate

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I don't know where people are getting this idea that no background checks are performed. Who is saying this and why? It's required. What is not required are private sales in some cases but in some states, private sales must be recorded.

And in 33 states there is NO check. Only 17 require a check. Apparently no ill effects of the requirement have been noted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

>From Okoboji online classifieds

That's cool. It's good to see that some people are indeed doing that, and good evidence that there is nothing preventing it from being done for all gun sales.

the laws proposed make criminals out of the law abiding
for one purpose

No, they only *CATCH* criminals who were already lawbreakers but for which no mechanism currently exists to catch them. Law abiding sellers and buyers have nothing to worry about.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>See that's the liberal talking.

Exactly.

Liberal: sounds good, how do we pay for it?

Conservative: we should just do it! It probably won't cost anything, not too clear on the math. And it if does, someone else will pay for it.

bizarro world sometimes isn't it?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Gun show organizers in 17 states have figured it out. Even Iowa, so it can't be difficult.

The proposal in universal background checks, not just gun shows.

How would universal background checks be enforced?

Derek V

When they somehow find you in possession of great grandpa's shotgun passed down to you through the family years ago you'd need to be able to prove you've had a background check for the transfer unless you can produce a receipt stating when you got it. If you can't do this hello felony charges and welcome to the world of privately run for profit prisons.

[normiss 622]

Once IN the system, good luck getting out!

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-26/colorado-sheriffs-join-peers-saying-gun-laws-not-viable.html?cmpid=yhoo

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>From Okoboji online classifieds

That's cool. It's good to see that some people are indeed doing that, and good evidence that there is nothing preventing it from being done for all gun sales.

the laws proposed make criminals out of the law abiding
for one purpose

No, they only *CATCH* criminals who were already lawbreakers but for which no mechanism currently exists to catch them. Law abiding sellers and buyers have nothing to worry about.

Nope, it creates criminals

The crooks will not give a damn about an unenforcalbe law from the start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[champu 1]

So, suppose we went with a federal "cleared to buy" card/certificate/whatever that you could get by filling out a form and passing a background check. It would last one year, could be renewed easily (maybe even online, where an updated background check could be run and then they send you a new card) and with it you could buy zero guns or several guns. Card is presented by the buyer to the seller for any transaction, and seller makes a copy of the buyer's card. (could be as simple as placing the card next to the firearm with the serial number showing and taking a photo with a smartphone. The transaction doesn't need to be reported to anyone.

Okay, sounds pretty good (I think), now what...

Someone commits a crime with a gun. Nobody gets hurt so the DA says, "hey tell you what... you tell me who sold you the gun and I'll push for a lighter sentence." guy tells him who he bought it from.

Police go to the named person and say, "hey, you sold a gun to a guy who used it in a crime, do you have a record of him having a cleared-to-buy card?

1) guy says, "yeah" and presents it. It checks out, police now have to leave him alone.

2) guy says, "never heard of 'em and I've never seen that gun in my life." Police now have the option to go to the manufacturer and try and put together a story that shows that said person has, in fact, seen that gun in his life. If they can, and he has, then they can try and arraign him.

3) guy says, "I sold that gun, but it wasn't to who you say used it." and guy shows police a picture of the 3rd party who presented the cleared-buy-card. Police now have to leave seller alone, third party is now in hot water.

4) guy says, "Yeah, but I sold it to him before all this ID stuff started, so I have no record of it..." er...

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>From Okoboji online classifieds

That's cool. It's good to see that some people are indeed doing that, and good evidence that there is nothing preventing it from being done for all gun sales.

the laws proposed make criminals out of the law abiding
for one purpose

No, they only *CATCH* criminals who were already lawbreakers but for which no mechanism currently exists to catch them. Law abiding sellers and buyers have nothing to worry about.

Nope, it creates criminals

The crooks will not give a damn about an unenforcalbe law from the start

Explain your claim that a law abiding non-felon citizen buying a gun and passing a background check becomes a criminal just because a background check was required.

Explain VERY carefully.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So, suppose we went with a federal "cleared to buy" card/certificate/whatever that you could get by filling out a form and passing a background check. It would last one year, could be renewed easily (maybe even online, where an updated background check could be run and then they send you a new card) and with it you could buy zero guns or several guns. Card is presented by the buyer to the seller for any transaction, and seller makes a copy of the buyer's card. (could be as simple as placing the card next to the firearm with the serial number showing and taking a photo with a smartphone. The transaction doesn't need to be reported to anyone.

it's excellent

this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.)


cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 622]

Don't continue to ignore the loonies!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Don't continue to ignore the loonies!

So if a loony fails a BG check and buys a gun anyway, he's now a felon AND a loony.

Seems to me that requiring BG checks actually protects the seller.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

So, suppose we went with a federal "cleared to buy" card/certificate/whatever that you could get by filling out a form and passing a background check. It would last one year, could be renewed easily (maybe even online, where an updated background check could be run and then they send you a new card) and with it you could buy zero guns or several guns. Card is presented by the buyer to the seller for any transaction, and seller makes a copy of the buyer's card. (could be as simple as placing the card next to the firearm with the serial number showing and taking a photo with a smartphone. The transaction doesn't need to be reported to anyone.

it's excellent

this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.)

cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO

Well, I like it to, but there are problems with it as I point out in my example scenario 4. If you recover a gun and the manufacturer tells you it was made after the law went into effect then that's one thing, but we're talking about a really long time constant to get to that point.

If you're in law enforcement and you're dealing with a guy who you think is selling guns to people with no cards, and one of them turns up in a crime, how do you prove that he sold the guy the gun after the law went into effect? Do you trust the guy who you've arrested for using the gun in a crime? Do you try to piece together the details of what was probably a cash transaction? Or do you send in an undercover officer as someone without a card and hope he slips up?

And, more importantly, if you're a law abiding citizen who began checking for cards for all sales as soon as it was mandated, how do you get the law enforcement guy off your back when he or she comes asking about a gun you sold a while ago? Maybe you have good records and maybe you don't, but it shouldn't be on you to make a case that you didn't do anything wrong.

I don't think these are non-starters, but I think these two cases of grandfathered transactions need to be addressed up front, and in doing so people need to be comfortable with the idea that this will only help fix the problem eventually.

[Bertt 0]

You mean like a pistol permit that's issued by a law enforcement agency and has to be renewed every year and is already in use in jurisdictiions around the country ?

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, suppose we went with a federal "cleared to buy" card/certificate/whatever that you could get by filling out a form and passing a background check. It would last one year, could be renewed easily (maybe even online, where an updated background check could be run and then they send you a new card) and with it you could buy zero guns or several guns. Card is presented by the buyer to the seller for any transaction, and seller makes a copy of the buyer's card. (could be as simple as placing the card next to the firearm with the serial number showing and taking a photo with a smartphone. The transaction doesn't need to be reported to anyone.

it's excellent

this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.)

cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO

Well, I like it to, but there are problems with it as I point out in my example scenario 4. If you recover a gun and the manufacturer tells you it was made after the law went into effect then that's one thing, but we're talking about a really long time constant to get to that point.

If you're in law enforcement and you're dealing with a guy who you think is selling guns to people with no cards, and one of them turns up in a crime, how do you prove that he sold the guy the gun after the law went into effect? Do you trust the guy who you've arrested for using the gun in a crime? Do you try to piece together the details of what was probably a cash transaction? Or do you send in an undercover officer as someone without a card and hope he slips up?

And, more importantly, if you're a law abiding citizen who began checking for cards for all sales as soon as it was mandated, how do you get the law enforcement guy off your back when he or she comes asking about a gun you sold a while ago? Maybe you have good records and maybe you don't, but it shouldn't be on you to make a case that you didn't do anything wrong.

I don't think these are non-starters, but I think these two cases of grandfathered transactions need to be addressed up front, and in doing so people need to be comfortable with the idea that this will only help fix the problem eventually.

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, suppose we went with a federal "cleared to buy" card/certificate/whatever that you could get by filling out a form and passing a background check. It would last one year, could be renewed easily (maybe even online, where an updated background check could be run and then they send you a new card) and with it you could buy zero guns or several guns. Card is presented by the buyer to the seller for any transaction, and seller makes a copy of the buyer's card. (could be as simple as placing the card next to the firearm with the serial number showing and taking a photo with a smartphone. The transaction doesn't need to be reported to anyone.

it's excellent

this is pretty much the process I proposed (without the photos). But I'm good if it doesn't require reporting my name on the sale. (it's none of the government's business how many or what guns I buy - but the seller can personally track or not track who they sell to. That's his business and his private records.)

cleared to buy - should include proof of gun safety training/experience - IMHO

Well, I like it to, but there are problems with it as I point out in my example scenario 4. If you recover a gun and the manufacturer tells you it was made after the law went into effect then that's one thing, but we're talking about a really long time constant to get to that point.

If you're in law enforcement and you're dealing with a guy who you think is selling guns to people with no cards, and one of them turns up in a crime, how do you prove that he sold the guy the gun after the law went into effect? Do you trust the guy who you've arrested for using the gun in a crime? Do you try to piece together the details of what was probably a cash transaction? Or do you send in an undercover officer as someone without a card and hope he slips up?

And, more importantly, if you're a law abiding citizen who began checking for cards for all sales as soon as it was mandated, how do you get the law enforcement guy off your back when he or she comes asking about a gun you sold a while ago? Maybe you have good records and maybe you don't, but it shouldn't be on you to make a case that you didn't do anything wrong.

I don't think these are non-starters, but I think these two cases of grandfathered transactions need to be addressed up front, and in doing so people need to be comfortable with the idea that this will only help fix the problem eventually.

See this kind of talk is what I so rarely see in the GC debate - compromise, and an effort to actually find a solution. I like this concept, it creates a chain of accountability usable when necessary without you directly handing over your details to the dreaded gubmint. How to handle the grandfathered issues is a very good point, and how it's done would be key to making any progress on the overall idea...

Your last point however is a given - your constitution, culture and legal system guarantee that there is absolutely no GC measure that can have an immediate concrete effect. Something like this could address the problem definitely in the long term though, so long as the lobbyists don't take the teeth out of it...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker).

I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike.

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker).

I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike.

One good restricted right deserves another

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker).

I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike.

One good restricted right deserves another

Not much of an answer, I've lurked here long enough before posting to expect better from you. You also missed my point - the first amendment has restrictions already. Realistically of course, so does the second. It's much harder to kill you with words though.

I had a re-read of the exact wording of the amendment again today, both the one passed by congress and the one ratified by the states. I still believe the founders would be horrified at what it's been twisted into. But, that debate will rage onwards evermore...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker).

I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike.

One good restricted right deserves another

Not much of an answer, I've lurked here long enough before posting to expect better from you. You also missed my point - the first amendment has restrictions already. Realistically of course, so does the second. It's much harder to kill you with words though.

I had a re-read of the exact wording of the amendment again today, both the one passed by congress and the one ratified by the states. I still believe the founders would be horrified at what it's been twisted into. But, that debate will rage onwards evermore...

Which one and twisted how?

I am not following what you are asking?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker).

I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike.

One good restricted right deserves another

Not much of an answer, I've lurked here long enough before posting to expect better from you. You also missed my point - the first amendment has restrictions already. Realistically of course, so does the second. It's much harder to kill you with words though.

I had a re-read of the exact wording of the amendment again today, both the one passed by congress and the one ratified by the states. I still believe the founders would be horrified at what it's been twisted into. But, that debate will rage onwards evermore...

Which one and twisted how?

I am not following what you are asking?

What I asked in the earlier comment was for clarification on what similar restrictions you would like to see for free speech. Not, this is restricted therefore restrict that just as much. Which parts offend you, and what would be the equivalent restriction to free speech?

Regarding twisting, I was referring to the 2nd amendment. At the simplest level, it clearly mentions the right is necessary for a "well-trained militia". Training is not mandatory for one to own a firearm nationwide is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. If it's not, would you object to it becoming mandatory, or is that too restrictive?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

Which parts, specifically? Training/Experience? It's called English class. Ability to trace the source of a hate speech (a restricted form of speech)? I can watch your lips moving and these wiggly things on the side of my head pick up the sound waves generated.... (not *you* specifically, the hypothetical speaker).

I'd like to hear more about how apples and oranges are so very alike.

One good restricted right deserves another

Not much of an answer, I've lurked here long enough before posting to expect better from you. You also missed my point - the first amendment has restrictions already. Realistically of course, so does the second. It's much harder to kill you with words though.

I had a re-read of the exact wording of the amendment again today, both the one passed by congress and the one ratified by the states. I still believe the founders would be horrified at what it's been twisted into. But, that debate will rage onwards evermore...

Which one and twisted how?

I am not following what you are asking?

What I asked in the earlier comment was for clarification on what similar restrictions you would like to see for free speech. Not, this is restricted therefore restrict that just as much. Which parts offend you, and what would be the equivalent restriction to free speech?

Regarding twisting, I was referring to the 2nd amendment. At the simplest level, it clearly mentions the right is necessary for a "well-trained militia". Training is not mandatory for one to own a firearm nationwide is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, please. If it's not, would you object to it becoming mandatory, or is that too restrictive?

My comment on the first goes back to another thread

One where I posted that I think people mouths need to be registered before they can talk in public.

Quote

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.

The quote is a bit different than you posted
However, I would lean toward a level of training. Mostly safety related but, again I think then we regulate what is a stated right.

So, at this point, for me anyway, training becomes a personal responcibiltiy

....the right of people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

As related to the 1st, again, IMO, we have restrictions, written and unwritten, that should not be. Yelling fire in a theater is an example many like to bring up. I do not think that applies. It is not a free speech issue, you can yell it in there if you want to, but unles there really is a fire, there seems to be intent to cause harm.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

My comment on the first goes back to another thread

One where I posted that I think people mouths need to be registered before they can talk in public.

I like the idea. I'm torn on it's implementation.

Quote

Quote

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.

The quote is a bit different than you posted
However, I would lean toward a level of training. Mostly safety related but, again I think then we regulate what is a stated right.

So, at this point, for me anyway, training becomes a personal responcibiltiy

....the right of people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

As related to the 1st, again, IMO, we have restrictions, written and unwritten, that should not be. Yelling fire in a theater is an example many like to bring up. I do not think that applies. It is not a free speech issue, you can yell it in there if you want to, but unles there really is a fire, there seems to be intent to cause harm.

I've been intrigued by the difference between the congress version (which you've quoted) and the states version - identical words but with the first and third commas removed. It's splitting hairs I guess, but semantically I find the states version to be implicitly stating that the right is in direct relation to the requirement for the militia. You're right though that it states regulated, not trained, but would be easily interpreted the same way, no? At which point training seems an obvious requirement that in no way infringes on the inherent right - safety of course being the key focus.

With regard to personal responsibility, I have to respectfully disagree. You may have it. Other friends and family I have in the US I know have it. Plenty of fucksticks out there who could barely pronounce it, let alone display it...

I don't think I'm reading your last point right (it's late here), are you saying there should not be a restriction on shouting "fire" as in the example, or that the implied intent to cause harm means it doesn't count as free speech and shouldn't be allowed?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[rushmc 18]

Responcibility can not be regulated
A gov can try but in the end it ends up like the drug war here

Many states do have 2nd Amendment related lines in thier own states Constitution, but the state I am in, Iowa, has nothing

The rights of the people are protected and clarified under the Federal Constitution.

And safety is the kep focus, but the safety is from a tyranical opressive government as was the intent of the founders

If you question this, find and read the Federalist Papers

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Looking at all that is in this post

We need similar restrictions for free speech

There are already restrictions on free speech, and I expect you support them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.