Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gun Rights - right to bear arms

Gun Rights - right to bear arms (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2013, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The simple answer is politics. I mean, why would congress give itself the power to confirm the ATF Director and then refuse to confirm one for the next six years?
This is precisely the reason new federal gun control regulations should be vehemently opposed. If the current solution is ineffective because of politics, what does that say for even more restrictive legislation? Are the politics going to simply disappear?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 10:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
But it isn't a restriction to those who should lawfully have them.
I won't speak for the conservatives on this forum, but the general feeling I've interpreted is any barrier to entry – lawful or unlawful is seen as a restriction. (i.e., waiting that 15 minutes or day for the background check is a restriction on the ability to just buy one like a McDonald's burger).
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is precisely the reason new federal gun control regulations should be vehemently opposed. If the current solution is ineffective because of politics, what does that say for even more restrictive legislation? Are the politics going to simply disappear?
"It's not going to work, so let's not try."

How convenient for those opposed to it even if it did work.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"It's not going to work, so let's not try."

How convenient for those opposed to it even if it did work.
But it's been shown, repeatedly, that the previous Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to reduce gun violence. We already know it won't work because it was tried before and failed to accomplish what it set out to accomplish.

What makes you think this time will be different?

Furthermore, gun violence, as a whole, is lower than it has been in decades. There are enough gun laws on the books - it's time for them to be enforced more vigorously. We don't need more laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms, we need the laws that are already there enforced.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
But it's been shown, repeatedly, that the previous Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to reduce gun violence. We already know it won't work because it was tried before and failed to accomplish what it set out to accomplish.
Neither one of us mentioned the AWB. He was talking in the abstract, which part of the reason his comment was so crappy.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 01:17 PM
 
Catastrophe when America’s twin gave up guns

This is just so, terrifying, I don't know what to think
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"It's not going to work, so let's not try."

How convenient for those opposed to it even if it did work.
It's more along the lines of "330 million americans face losing a freedom for legislation which shows little to no promise to curb the problem it sets out to solve"
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's more along the lines of "330 million americans face losing a freedom for legislation which shows little to no promise to curb the problem it sets out to solve"


Oh ok, so this is a set-up to rant about how you feel about specific legislation, rather than effective laws. Have at it, but it's not a reason to oppose the concept of government regulation.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 02:24 PM
 
The shear number of people in the prison system in the US shows that there are some fundamental issues that need to be solved. Picking the boogey man dejour and making a stink about it will never solve the problem.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 05:40 PM
 
90% of these problems would go away if you just legalized pot.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 05:53 PM
 
As you can tell from Australia, all that would do is replace them with other problems. Problems that may be worse then the current ones.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 06:04 PM
 
Drop bears > ganja
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 06:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I won't speak for the conservatives on this forum, but the general feeling I've interpreted is any barrier to entry – lawful or unlawful is seen as a restriction.
Then I disagree with them, and I'm one of the most vehement proponents for an armed citizenry.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 06:22 PM
 
Does anyone argue BGCs at a store are an infringement?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does anyone argue BGCs at a store are an infringement?
Only the conspiracy theorists.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 06:45 PM
 
So, like, giant government database of gun owners?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, like, giant government database of gun owners?
Running a BG check doesn't instantly mean the person is a gun owner. The BG check system is used for many other things.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 1, 2013, 08:21 PM
 
So, what are the conspiracy people worried about?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2013, 12:07 AM
 
It's largely paranoia.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2013, 12:57 AM
 
It the after purchase tracking that would be an issue. Complete tracking of guns thru to the retailer wouldn't be a problem and would probably cut down on allot of illegal firearms. I could even see in person to person sales making the seller report the sale. From a freedoms standpoint it's the government shouldn't know who has a gun. From the law enforcement you need to figure out who's selling them illegally. There is space in the middle.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2013, 10:10 AM
 
Federal law prohibits the government from maintaining a system of records to identify firearms owners. The "paranoia" aspect of that comes from the possibility that such a system of records could be used to target gun owners for all sorts of things, starting with confiscation of firearms. This is essentially how California has managed their assault weapons ban; honest citizens who registered their firearms according to the law in California were directly contacted and informed that their firearms were suddenly illegal and that they had a certain period of time to dispose of them. Oh by the way, nobody in California can buy them from you, and there are strict limits on how you can transfer such firearms out of state... But the state accepted such illegal firearms for disposal. I don't know if California actually paid anything to people who had to dispose of their firearms by handing them over, but even if they did, it was certainly nowhere near the fair market price for such guns. Was that "confiscation?" Let's see...it walks like confiscation, and quacks like confiscation... That is not to say that all owners of suddenly prohibited firearms had their guns confiscated by the state, but some did.

The question of tracking firearms found at crime scenes is brought up in a lot of places. Sure, it takes some time for ATF to find the manufacturer, find out what distributor bought it and what dealer they sold it to, and then who the dealer sold it to. It takes time to lift prints off of items at the crime scene too. And when they finally locate the purchaser of that firearm, odds are that it will have been stolen from that purchaser. (Whether or not the legitimate owner of the gun actually reported the theft is another matter.) Instead of a national database of all firearms transactions, which would be not only in violation of federal law, but huge and impossible to manage accurately, what we might do well to have is a national database of STOLEN firearms.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2013, 10:11 AM
 
^^

There is, and probably should be, a private sale hole, but I don't get where that hole should apply to gun show sales.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2013, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
what we might do well to have is a national database of STOLEN firearms.
I wonder if there's will to make it extremely illegal not to report a stolen firearm.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2013, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
I could even see in person to person sales making the seller report the sale. From a freedoms standpoint it's the government shouldn't know who has a gun. From the law enforcement you need to figure out who's selling them illegally. There is space in the middle.
I'm having trouble seeing that space in the middle. In order to avoid "gov knows who has a gun," then the report, whatever it is, doesn't report the buyer's identity. If the current owner is not identified, then there is no way to enforce any rule that he should report a sale. Therefore, anyone who is knowingly making sales to prohibited persons will simply not report the sale. Later, when the gun is found to have at some time been sold illegally and then used illegally, the last reported sale will be the gun store, making a legal sale, but the buyer (later the illegal seller) will not be identifiable. Not unless you expect gun merchants to keep records of the identities of all their customers, whether on their own initiative or by requirement, in which case you've given up on that "space in the middle" because you're keeping track of buyers AND sellers, not just sellers. So... what am I missing?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2013, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
^^

There is, and probably should be, a private sale hole, but I don't get where that hole should apply to gun show sales.
Quite simply, if it is a sale between an individual and a licensed dealer (the vast majority of gun sales at gun shows are this type), then it DOES get a background check. If it's between two individuals, how is the locale relevant? What is it about a gun show that makes Joe selling his old revolver to Fred different from Joe going to Fred's house?

Let's say that instead, Joe is carrying around a hunting rifle with a sign on it, like a flag, that says "rifle for sale." Fred stops Joe and asks how much, and eventually they come to a deal. The ONLY thing about the gun show that is different from Fred answering an ad in the classified section of the paper is that the deal gets done faster. With witnesses-lots of them. Oh, and probably at least one or two BATFE agents in attendance as well.

So sales by people in the business of selling firearms (which is the definition of a person or business that requires a Federal Firearms License) DO have background checks. But sales between individuals do not, any more than they would if the sale happened because of an ad in the paper. How is that a "loophole?"

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2013, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post


Oh ok, so this is a set-up to rant about how you feel about specific legislation, rather than effective laws. Have at it, but it's not a reason to oppose the concept of government regulation.
I'm not opposed to the concept of government regulation. I believe guns should be regulated - state by state, with perhaps some federal regulations (such as mandating external safeties, etc). I'm against another AWB where the last one showed no effect whatsoever on the problems it set out to solve.

Why would it be any different today? I've yet to see any arguments that could shed light on how this proposed agenda would be any different than 94-04.

I am vehemently opposed to regulation which does not solve the problems its creators set out to solve, i.e. ineffective laws.

Now, could you point me towards where my argument might break down? Even though we rarely agree on particular issues, i respect your positions as they are usually well-thought out and well constructed.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2013, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not opposed to the concept of government regulation. I believe guns should be regulated - state by state, with perhaps some federal regulations (such as mandating external safeties, etc). I'm against another AWB where the last one showed no effect whatsoever on the problems it set out to solve.

Why would it be any different today? I've yet to see any arguments that could shed light on how this proposed agenda would be any different than 94-04.

I am vehemently opposed to regulation which does not solve the problems its creators set out to solve, i.e. ineffective laws.

Now, could you point me towards where my argument might break down? Even though we rarely agree on particular issues, i respect your positions as they are usually well-thought out and well constructed.
The purpoase of AWB was to reduce gun related crimes and deaths/murders.

During the 10 years that AWB was in effect, gun related crimes and deaths/murders dropped over 40%.

Seems pretty effective to me.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 02:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
The thought has occurred to me that you may just be the only American on this forum who is on the "more control" side of this debate, as all the rest are either Canucks, Brits, or EU. Not to say that's a bad thing, in fact it makes your dissenting opinion that much more valuable.


Edit: Oh, wait, there's OAW. Never-mind.
*Cough*

Pro Gun here....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 03:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
The purpoase of AWB was to reduce gun related crimes and deaths/murders.

During the 10 years that AWB was in effect, gun related crimes and deaths/murders dropped over 40%.

Seems pretty effective to me.
Citation?

Mine shows otherwise. Infact, the absolute number of deaths was lower in 2011 than in any other year dating to 1999. This stat includes all long guns, not just the targeted ban weapons.

Originally Posted by http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
Long Gun Homicides
ChartIn the United States, annual long gun homicides total

2011: 679
2010: 733
2009: 774
2008: 822
2007: 910
2006: 768
2005: 765
2004: 714
2003: 687
2002: 744
2001: 758
2000: 694
1999: 693
I believe you're including handgun homicides in your stat. An assault weapons ban would address this how?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 09:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Then I disagree with them, and I'm one of the most vehement proponents for an armed citizenry.
Well here's the question that you probably won't and aren't obligated to answer: Then why is Wayne La Pierre opposed to them (now)?


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Federal law prohibits the government from maintaining a system of records to identify firearms owners. The "paranoia" aspect of that comes from the possibility that such a system of records could be used to target gun owners for all sorts of things, starting with confiscation of firearms.
Yeah, this isn't an accident.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not opposed to the concept of government regulation. I believe guns should be regulated - state by state, with perhaps some federal regulations (such as mandating external safeties, etc).
State-by-state won't work.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not opposed to the concept of government regulation. I believe guns should be regulated - state by state, with perhaps some federal regulations (such as mandating external safeties, etc). I'm against another AWB where the last one showed no effect whatsoever on the problems it set out to solve.

Why would it be any different today? I've yet to see any arguments that could shed light on how this proposed agenda would be any different than 94-04.

I am vehemently opposed to regulation which does not solve the problems its creators set out to solve, i.e. ineffective laws.

Now, could you point me towards where my argument might break down? Even though we rarely agree on particular issues, i respect your positions as they are usually well-thought out and well constructed.
Let me spell it out for you – No where did I mention the AWB. You're the one that brought it up. It's a strawman.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well here's the question that you probably won't and aren't obligated to answer: Then why is Wayne La Pierre opposed to them (now)?
It's his job, now. Like other politicians (and he is one), his outward position changed because he's the main figurehead of the organization. Giving up even an inch of ground he believes is a net loss. Before, Obama was against gay marriage, but now he's for it because it became politically expedient for the Left, to consolidate the party.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 02:08 PM
 
Really? I always assumed he was pro, but kept that on the DL.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 03:08 PM
 
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2013, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
"It's not going to work, so let's not try."

How convenient for those opposed to it even if it did work.
What else could you have been referencing? Or just making a statement in general?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 10:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's his job, now. Like other politicians (and he is one), his outward position changed because he's the main figurehead of the organization. Giving up even an inch of ground he believes is a net loss.
A net loss of what, exactly? Rights? Gun sales?

Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Before, Obama was against gay marriage, but now he's for it because it became politically expedient for the Left, to consolidate the party.
Is being against background checks really politically expedient? Polls show a majority of Americans for increased gun control. Can't imagine how much higher consensus goes once you narrow it down to background checks.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What else could you have been referencing? Or just making a statement in general?
Your statement was general. Your statement was "all regulation is bad."
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Polls show a majority of Americans for <insert your cause here>.
Fixed.
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 02:37 PM
 
All polls are a load of Crap...
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
All polls are a load of Crap...
What poll shows that?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What poll shows that?
All the ones I disagree with, of course.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post


Your statement was general. Your statement was "all regulation is bad."
Where did I say that?
     
Athens  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 04:43 PM
 
so much stick poking going on

Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 04:48 PM
 
If all you have is a stick, everything looks like something to poke.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
A net loss of what, exactly? Rights? Gun sales?

Is being against background checks really politically expedient? Polls show a majority of Americans for increased gun control. Can't imagine how much higher consensus goes once you narrow it down to background checks.
A majority of Americans, but most likely not a majority of NRA members. I'm all for the checks, as long as there's no wait, but very much against a registry (which many NRA members believe is happening illegally).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 5, 2013, 09:49 PM
 
I wish my state legislature felt the same way about a registry. On the other hand, I can't see how one could possibly object to a no-wait check, unless you were willing to let people prohibited from getting guns to get them.

Somewhat related, as a felon, Danny Bonaduce is on said prohibited list. Back when he was (ack!) married, he used to mention "my wife has several, and they're all on my side of the bed".
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2013, 03:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
so much stick poking going on

     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2013, 03:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If all you have is a stick, everything looks like something to poke.
Well, once they've got our guns you know they'll come for the sticks next.

"News at 6:30pm, mass poking has country in a panic"
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2013, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A majority of Americans, but most likely not a majority of NRA members. I'm all for the checks, as long as there's no wait, but very much against a registry (which many NRA members believe is happening illegally).
As a database designer I am reluctant to submit my information to any sort of database without extreme caution. You can do some pretty amazing/nefarious things with information. The potential for abuse is astounding.

That said, I'm all for background checks and have no problem submitting for that. But a registry? No way.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2013, 07:14 AM
 
There is a little bit of truth in this, and a lot of misleading partial-truth. The NRA officially wants the current gun laws, especially as applied to licensed dealers, to be fully enforced. But the GOP-controlled House hasn't bothered to fund the ATF sufficiently to "police" those licensed dealers very thoroughly at all.

Also, the ATF has historically been, until about 2002, entirely a tax collection agency, having been formed under the Treasury Department to ensure that taxes on alcohol, tobacco and firearms (that's their initials, after all) were collected. They sort of morphed into a pseudo-law enforcement agency somehow, with the worst part being in the 1990s (look up Ruby Ridge and Waco). They were still understaffed and under funded, but they went around using their "enforcement agents" as federal police with some particularly interesting immunities owing to their organization under Treasury. This has, to say the least, left a "bad track record" which the newly realigned agency now has to live down. There indeed has been bad feelings between NRA and ATF, but this is now fading into the background with new issues to deal with. So citing old stuff, using old NRA statements about ATF, etc. is kind of disingenuous.

I personally (and I've said this before) would like to see ATF funded and staffed appropriately for their workload now, including plenty of field staff who could, without warning, drop in on a licensed dealer's shop and say "let's do a 100%, hands on inventory...now." The very few but very problematic "bad" dealers would probably find this to be "unpleasant," the few but innocent "bad bookkeeper" dealers would find ways to fix their documentation procedures, and the enormous majority of careful, conscientious dealers would find it a minor and rare irritation. The result would be a better picture of how well the current system of laws actually works, and if any changes at the dealer level need to be made at all, what they might be. That's kind of the point: you cannot manage anything you lack any real data about. The same, by the way, applies to the NICS background check system, and a number of other current gun laws.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2013, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Where did I say that?
...
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is precisely the reason new federal gun control regulations should be vehemently opposed. If the current solution is ineffective because of politics, what does that say for even more restrictive legislation? Are the politics going to simply disappear?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 6, 2013, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i
I'm not opposed to the concept of government regulation. I believe guns should be regulated - state by state, with perhaps some federal regulations (such as mandating external safeties, etc).
Originally Posted by Snow-i
This is precisely the reason new federal gun control regulations should be vehemently opposed. If the current solution is ineffective because of politics, what does that say for even more restrictive legislation? Are the politics going to simply disappear?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
... i respect your positions as they are usually well-thought out and well constructed.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Your statement was general. Your statement was "all regulation is bad."
Where did Snow-i make the general statement; "all regulation is bad"?
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2