Active shooter - DC Navy yard

[champu 1]

kelpdiver

***

Quote

Would you support a system where a voter had to go to a sheriff to get a ballot to vote?

Well, I had to go to the voting registration office to get put on the voter roles. But maybe that was just me.

In CA, you can register at the DMV, at any grocery store or transit hub or busy intersection where a partisan party pays someone to act as a registrar.

The entire point of requiring visiting a sheriff to register a gun is to make more difficult, particularly for those who don't live in more rural areas, or who do not own a car. It's a perfect example of that "sounds reasonable to me if I don't think about it" type of gun control legislation.

If they made it shall-issue, once in person, renew online, available at any Sheriff's department, local police department, dmv, post office, city hall, etc. and there were no new transaction records required when you used it to buy a firearm or ammunition then I would be on board.

And for people out there who don't support certain things (not just firearms laws), that's great, but check to see if someone "representing" you does. If they do and you don't say something to them, then guess what...

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

The entire point of requiring visiting a sheriff to register a gun is to make more difficult...

I have to disagree with you on this (not surprisingly). I think the point is to make it less likely that a private seller will unknowingly sell to someone who is legally barred from purchasing firearms. I admit that this poses a small inconvenience for those who are not so restricted. I happen to live in a rural area, in the largest county in Georgia, so it would take me 15-20 minutes to drive to the sheriff. Big whoop-de-do. In the Iowa system the permits are good for six months, and for any number of gun purchases, so it's not like I would need to run by the sheriff to get a permit every time I want to go to look at a possible purchase.

The real question is, is there anything at all that would pass muster with you as an effort to prevent people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms from getting them via a private sale? Or would you hold that the only thing that should be done is to prosecute such people after the fact?

It's a curious thing (to me) that I cannot go into a pharmacy and buy a cold remedy without showing ID, and I am limited to one bottle at a time. I cannot buy alcohol or (should I care to) tobacco without showing ID, despite the fact that I am in my 50s and would never be mistaken for a 20-year-old. I cannot vote without registering (and so having to prove citizenship and residence in the district) in advance, and then proving my identity again at the polling station. All are forms of prior restraint, justified by the perceived need to protect children from the perils of alcohol and tobacco, the need to prevent meth manufacturers from getting raw materials, and by the need to protect the sanctity of the vote. Yet it seems it is perfectly acceptable that wanted criminals, people with restraining orders against them, people who the legal system have deemed to be too out of contact with reality to own firearms, all these people are perfectly free to obtain whatever weapons they desire via private sales.

If we ran voting the way we allow private gun sales to run, then anybody would be able to walk into any polling place (and any number of them), promise that they live in the precinct and are eligible to vote, and then vote. No a priori voter registration, no need to show ID, just purely an honor system. If it later turns out that more votes were cast than there are people living in the precinct, it would be up to law enforcement to try to track down whoever voted improperly and prosecute them after the fact. Yet, curiously enough, it seems that many of the people here in Speaker's Corner who most favor voting controls such as government approved IDs are also the same people who oppose background checks to keep criminals from purchasing guns.

It's pretty obvious to me that criminals have no problem obtaining weapons. Its also obvious to me that a major part of the reason for that is that the NRA and some fraction of the gun owning population oppose absolutely any measure to impose even the most trivial of barriers to gun purchases. Since we all agree (I presume) that criminals don't obey the law, relying on an honor system where we expect criminals to say "I'd really like to get a gun, but that would be illegal so I guess I can't" is sheer idiocy. If we insist on maintaining a system where a very large fraction of all gun sales (about 40%) are done with no checks whatsoever, we should be honest about it and admit that we have no interest in even trying to reduce violent crime in this country.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

***I have noticed that when they claimed it was an AR it was front page.... Now that it was the same weapon that Biden said was a good SD weapon it is buried in the story on page 8.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

Ah look, personal attacks.... This the best you can do?

[DaVinci 0]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Would you support a system where a voter had to go to a sheriff to get a ballot to vote?

Well, I had to go to the voting registration office to get put on the voter roles. But maybe that was just me.

Hey wait a minute! Voter registration? I have to get put on a list if I want to vote? You mean the gooberment knows where I live, keeps a record of that, just so I can exercise a Constitutional Right???? I can't just walk into any polling station, demand my right to vote, and leave it up to the gooberment to prove after the fact that I was actually not actually entitled to vote at that polling place? What kind of a country is this, anyway? Not a free one, I guess. Oh, the humanity!

Don

And how about that background check before you can vote? And nice that you ignored that the police have a history of denying rights.... Otherwise the voter rights act would not need to be in place.

So, simple question. Would you be OK with making a voter fill out a form, show ID, and go through a background check to vote?

[turtlespeed 212]

DaVinci

***

Quote

Would you support a system where a voter had to go to a sheriff to get a ballot to vote?

Well, I had to go to the voting registration office to get put on the voter roles. But maybe that was just me.

Hey wait a minute! Voter registration? I have to get put on a list if I want to vote? You mean the gooberment knows where I live, keeps a record of that, just so I can exercise a Constitutional Right???? I can't just walk into any polling station, demand my right to vote, and leave it up to the gooberment to prove after the fact that I was actually not actually entitled to vote at that polling place? What kind of a country is this, anyway? Not a free one, I guess. Oh, the humanity!

Don

And how about that background check before you can vote? And nice that you ignored that the police have a history of denying rights.... Otherwise the voter rights act would not need to be in place.

So, simple question. Would you be OK with making a voter fill out a form, show ID, and go through a background check to vote?

Holy F**k that would simplify the world wouldn't it?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I think the point is to make it less likely that a private seller will unknowingly sell to someone who is legally barred from purchasing firearms. I admit that this poses a small inconvenience for those who are not so restricted.

That same process was use to prevent citizens from being able to vote. For YOU a 15 min drive is not a big deal. How about those who work 9-5 M-F and don't have a car?

Quote

The real question is, is there anything at all that would pass muster with you as an effort to prevent people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms from getting them via a private sale?

It is already illegal. And you have stated several times that criminals are going to get guns. If your idea had any merit you would put the same process in place for coke and pot. But it will not work since criminals are never going to follow the law.

You do know that the gun show issue is less than 3% of firearms used in crimes.... Right? The anti gunners and the media, and the well meaning but data lacking folks seem to think it is a big source.... But the data shows it is LESS THAN 3% of guns used in crime. This should not be a big surprise, but people ignore it and think that making 97% of the other honest citizens jump through more hoops will do anything.

Quote

t's a curious thing (to me) that I cannot go into a pharmacy and buy a cold remedy without showing ID, and I am limited to one bottle at a time. I cannot buy alcohol or (should I care to) tobacco without showing ID, despite the fact that I am in my 50s and would never be mistaken for a 20-year-old.

And you cannot buy a gun in a gun store without filling out paperwork, showing ID, and passing a background check. You can easily buy a bottle of beer from your buddy, or a cigar from a friend without showing ID. Why ignore that and only insist on extra steps for guns?

Quote

Yet it seems it is perfectly acceptable that wanted criminals, people with restraining orders against them, people who the legal system have deemed to be too out of contact with reality to own firearms

False, that is your claim. My claim is that it is stupid to make 99.9% of the population jump through hoops in the hope that it *might* stop the 0.1% of criminals. Especially since we already know that criminals still get drugs in-spite of them being illegal. Somehow you think the same actions that do not work with criminals and drugs will suddenly work when it comes to criminals and drugs.

BTW, you do know that Sandy Hook would not have been prevented by your plan right? His Mom was legal, she HAD jumped through all the hoops you want. He killed her and STOLE her firearms.

As for Columbine, you do know that those two criminals had a history of mental issues and BUILT BOMBS right? Making bombs was illegal and it didn't prevent them from doing it.

Quote

If we ran voting the way we allow private gun sales to run

You can't compare a private sale to official voting.

Private sale = You and I voting on where to go to dinner.
Public sale = Public voting.

Quote

It's pretty obvious to me that criminals have no problem obtaining weapons. Its also obvious to me that a major part of the reason for that is that the NRA and some fraction of the gun owning population oppose absolutely any measure to impose even the most trivial of barriers to gun purchases.

Again, your opinion. We oppose rules that will impact honest citizens and will not do anything to stop criminals. All you have suggested is to make me jump through hoops in the hope that the criminal that sells drugs will have a problem.

Quote

Since we all agree (I presume) that criminals don't obey the law, relying on an honor system where we expect criminals to say "I'd really like to get a gun, but that would be illegal so I guess I can't" is sheer idiocy

And passing laws that impact honest citizens while having no impact on criminals is also sheer idiocy. And when you look at the anti gun agenda (I have given it to you twice now) they know they have to take baby steps to get their goal.

Quote

If we insist on maintaining a system where a very large fraction of all gun sales (about 40%) are done with no checks whatsoever

That 40% is a false number. It has been proven false several times. But lets just pretend it is not.... Out of that 40%, how many are to criminals?

Quote

we should be honest about it and admit that we have no interest in even trying to reduce violent crime in this country.

Nonsense. Like I have already stated... How did a guy with two violent convictions on his record be able to be involved in the Chicago shootings? How did he only get 'boot camp' instead of never seeing the light of day again?

You want to stop violent crime? Or do you want to punish honest citizens?

If you want to stop violent crime, then don't let two time violent felons walk the streets. Don't let people with known violent mental issues walk the streets.

Columbine, the kids had mental illness history
Aurora, the killer made death threats against the school shrink.
Giffords AZ shooter had enough of a problem he was forced out of school, denied enlistment into the Army.
VT the guy was sentenced to therapy


I could go on and on and on..... Focus on THESE issues and leave honest gun owners alone.

Unless, your goal is not to stop violent crime and is instead the same as the VPC and denying honest citizens their rights.

[kallend 1,625]

DaVinci

Quote

The real question is, is there anything at all that would pass muster with you as an effort to prevent people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms from getting them via a private sale?

It is already illegal. And you have stated several times that criminals are going to get guns.

Of course they are, because people like YOU oppose every effort to make it difficult for felons to get guns.

Making something illegal without any effective way of enforcing the law is the same as having no law at all.

...

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

[DaVinci 0]

kallend

***

Quote

The real question is, is there anything at all that would pass muster with you as an effort to prevent people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms from getting them via a private sale?

It is already illegal. And you have stated several times that criminals are going to get guns.

Of course they are, because people like YOU oppose every effort to make it difficult for felons to get guns.

Making something illegal without any effective way of enforcing the law is the same as having no law at all.

Oh look.... More personal crap... The best you have?

I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of felons... I am not however going to join you and remove or restrict a right from honest citizens to make that happen.

I have to stand up to people like you, people who want nothing more than to remove the right from honest citizens. You claim to care about the victims, but all you really want it to make us all disarmed because of your personal fear of firearms.

It is evidenced in the fact you refuse to state clearly what you would like.... Instead you make claims of already saying it... Once years ago...

Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ.

[DaVinci 0]

SkyDekker

Quote

Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ.

I guess you are in the new world?

[kallend 1,625]

DaVinci

It is evidenced in the fact you refuse to state clearly what you would like.... Instead you make claims of already saying it... Once years ago...

I have stated numerous times that sane, law abiding adults should be able to own whatever they like, including AR15s.

I have also stated numerous times that felons and mentally deranged people should be prevented by whatever means possible from obtaining firearms. That includes requiring background checks on private sales.

If you and rushmc think this implies banning you from having guns, I wonder in which of the two groups highlighted above you place yourselves.

...

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

[SkyDekker 1,123]

DaVinci

***

Quote

Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ.

I guess you are in the new world?

I am now yes

[kallend 1,625]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ.

I guess you are in the new world?

I am now yes

Improved both places then?

...

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

[kallend 1,625]

DaVinci

I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of felons... I am not however going to join you and remove or restrict a right from honest citizens to make that happen.

Have you been taking straw-man creation lessons from rushmc?

...

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

[SkyDekker 1,123]

kallend

*********

Quote

Makes me wonder why you ever left Jolly Old England.

Oh that one is easy. The old world had decided the new world was a bit low on IQ.

I guess you are in the new world?

I am now yes

Improved both places then?

LMAO absolutely

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

The entire point of requiring visiting a sheriff to register a gun is to make more difficult...

I have to disagree with you on this (not surprisingly). I think the point is to make it less likely that a private seller will unknowingly sell to someone who is legally barred from purchasing firearms. I admit that this poses a small inconvenience for those who are not so restricted. I happen to live in a rural area, in the largest county in Georgia, so it would take me 15-20 minutes to drive to the sheriff.

I must have missed the part in the Constitution where car ownership was a requirement to avoid the "shall not be infringed" clause.

In many parts of California, that 15-20 minutes would be substantially greater. And in the populated areas, the Sheriffs have more pressing maters. So next thing you know, you can talk to them from 10-noon on Tuesday, only.

Quote

The real question is, is there anything at all that would pass muster with you as an effort to prevent people who are legally disqualified from owning firearms from getting them via a private sale? Or would you hold that the only thing that should be done is to prosecute such people after the fact?

I live in one of the many states where this battle was already lost. But yes, given that the problem is nearly non existent, that the Feds won't prosecute Brady applicants, and that there is a compelling reason for private sales, I have a hard time with prior restraint here.

I'm annoyed with the restrictions on sudafed, I rarely need to show ID to buy alcohol, I registered to vote by mail at the DMV. None of these were remotely as difficult as the process to buy a gun in California. Your dog doesn't work for me. Georgia may be different.

Quote

If we ran voting the way we allow private gun sales to run, then anybody would be able to walk into any polling place (and any number of them), promise that they live in the precinct and are eligible to vote, and then vote.

Hey, welcome to California (and many other states).

Quote

Yet, curiously enough, it seems that many of the people here in Speaker's Corner who most favor voting controls such as government approved IDs are also the same people who oppose background checks to keep criminals from purchasing guns.

And yet, in mere seconds you could see that I oppose controls on both, believe that both are attempts to solve problems that don't really exist, due to a not very hidden desire to take away rights.

Quote

It's pretty obvious to me that criminals have no problem obtaining weapons. Its also obvious to me that a major part of the reason for that is that the NRA and some fraction of the gun owning population oppose absolutely any measure to impose even the most trivial of barriers to gun purchases.

It may be obvious to you, but that still doesn't mean it's true. If it were, then how do criminals get guns in California? Nevada doesn't have enough to supply all of them. Gun trade and drug trade are closely related. If you can't stop one, you can't stop the other, and you can stop fucking with the people while pretending to attack either problem.

[Bertt 0]

Just saw closed circuit TV pictures of the Navy Yard shooter in a BBC news article. They didn't identify the gun, but it looks suspiciously like a Rem 870 tactical, especially in the close-up photo.
Some conclusions I've drawn:
No pistol grip, so not dangerous
Not semi-auto, so not dangerous
Magazine limited to 10 rds., so not dangerous
Not easily concealable, so not dangerous
Final conclusion: There must have been another shooter with a couple of pistols and an assault rifle (probably an AR-15 or an AK-47 or something with a pistol grip). I refuse to believe there are crazy people who will start killing folks with whatever comes to hand. That would be too hard to fix without spending money on mental health services. Carry on.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Bignugget 0]

DaVinci

******I have noticed that when they claimed it was an AR it was front page.... Now that it was the same weapon that Biden said was a good SD weapon it is buried in the story on page 8.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

Ah look, personal attacks.... This the best you can do?



Ahh this is the whole heart of the thread right here.

Is it OK to tell a bat-shit crazy person they are bat-shit crazy? If so is it OK to do something to help ensure the bat-shit crazy person cannot have access to guns?

Or is it a personal attack on them?

[rushmc 18]

Bignugget

*********I have noticed that when they claimed it was an AR it was front page.... Now that it was the same weapon that Biden said was a good SD weapon it is buried in the story on page 8.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

Ah look, personal attacks.... This the best you can do?



Ahh this is the whole heart of the thread right here.

Is it OK to tell a bat-shit crazy person they are bat-shit crazy? If so is it OK to do something to help ensure the bat-shit crazy person cannot have access to guns?

Or is it a personal attack on them?
So, yout think is it OK that I point out you are bat shit crazy and an anti-constitution liberal? At least in my opinion?

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

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I have also stated numerous times that felons and mentally deranged people should be prevented by whatever means possible from obtaining firearms. That includes requiring background checks on private sales.

The problem is you have never said how EXACTLY you want to do this. Other than your "look it up" claims.

Quote

If you and rushmc think this implies banning you from having guns, I wonder in which of the two groups highlighted above you place yourselves.

Neither. But just like you claimed that you should not have to go through paperwork and background checks to fly toy rockets.... Honest citizens should not have to jump through hoops to own firearms.

Not a difficult concept, honest citizens should not be subjected to bull shit just to make you feel better.

The VT shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors.

The Aurora shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors.

Giffords shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors.

The Navy yard shooter - Passed a background check because of reporting errors.

Your solution? Make everyone pass a background check. Well if it didn't work there.... What makes you think it works at all?

Fact is all you really want to do is to make it difficult and expensive to own a firearm.

Simple put... If you would not accept the SAME process in voting as to own a firearm, your agenda is crystal clear. And it is not to reduce violence.

The FBI crime data shows that 90% of gun crimes are black males 13-29 in cities with populations over 250k. So maybe you should look at that demographic rather than try to make every gun owner in the US jump through whatever hoop you can dream up.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Have you been taking straw-man creation lessons from rushmc?

Ah look.... you went personal again.... How surprising

But all I really have to do is read what you type to know what you want to do.

[rhaig 0]

kallend

***
I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of felons... I am not however going to join you and remove or restrict a right from honest citizens to make that happen.

Have you been taking straw-man creation lessons from rushmc?

don't worry... he's nowhere close to your level of straw-man artistry

--
Rob

[DaVinci 0]

Bignugget

*********I have noticed that when they claimed it was an AR it was front page.... Now that it was the same weapon that Biden said was a good SD weapon it is buried in the story on page 8.

How's that tinfoil hat working out for you?

Ah look, personal attacks.... This the best you can do?



Ahh this is the whole heart of the thread right here.

Is it OK to tell a bat-shit crazy person they are bat-shit crazy? If so is it OK to do something to help ensure the bat-shit crazy person cannot have access to guns?

Or is it a personal attack on them?

When they are judged mentally deficient by Dr's and/or ruled by legal methods... then it is perfectly fine to label a person as mentally deficient.

What is not allowed is you you to claim I am, or me to claim you are and have that result in the loss of your rights.

See, you may claim I am so I should not be allowed to own guns.
But then I could claim you are and have your right to vote removed.

See the problem?

And even you must admit that in the past claiming the person was not capable of higher thinking has been a reason to deny or remove rights from them.

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race" - Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln–Douglas Debates of 1858

All one really needs to do is look at the voter suppression in the 40,50,60's to see it. But while that bothers you, the idea of restricting gun rights IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER does not.