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 > Obama's response to gun question

Obama's response to gun question (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2016, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You guys are so paranoid.

I can understand how our rules would give you a heart attack if you won't even get a magazine subscription in your name, but in practice the whole process is simultaneous taken very seriously but is also very chilled out. The firearms officers typically end up on very friendly terms with licence holders, none of the licencees have any interest in overthrowing any governments, tyrannical or otherwise and the firearms cops don't seem remotely interested in tyrannising anyone.
Its odd when you consider that its supposedly our government who inspired your centuries of paranoia in the first place.
I feel like my country would be far less paranoid, and a much nicer place to be, if it didn't fall to us to be the world's policemen.

Similarly, I can't help but think my fears about tyranny would be far less justified if my closest ally was the world police.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2016, 11:20 PM
 
The UK knows if Brexit goes through (pray it does) we'll back them, it's part of the "special relationship".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 12:02 PM
 
Something tells me our rights will be at much greater risk if we leave the EU.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 01:26 PM
 
How is that? You're essentially unrepresented in the EU, as it is.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2016, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
How is that? You're essentially unrepresented in the EU, as it is.
Yes, but with the "benefits" of endless regulation:

https://youtu.be/MGeDX-6DINM

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 04:38 AM
 
The tories have tried to repeal our human rights act once already.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
https://www.facebook.com/newshour/vi...4247237078675/

What in this answer is unreasonable?
Nothing.

Look, I'm a gun owner. I own several guns, both pistols and rifles. I just submitted forms to the ATF to make a short-barreled rifle and I'm going to get a suppressor soon. I strongly support the right of people to keep and bear arms. I think the NFA is outdated and ridiculous and to make an SBR or buy a suppressor should take no more than a background check - not require submitting forms to the ATF, paying a $200 tax, and waiting 6+ months before the form gets approved before I can take possession.

That said, I believe the NRA political branch is comprised of a bunch of paranoid, fear-mongering, idiots.

There ARE common sense gun laws that could be implemented that would not infringe on our rights.

As an example, the so called "gun show loophole". Many (most) people don't understand what this is. It refers to the fact that I can go to a gun show and buy a gun from an INDIVIDUAL (not a dealer) walking around with guns for sale and he would not have to carry out a background check. I give him money, he gives me a gun. That's idiotic.

I think we can all agree that someone shouldn't be able to walk up to some random person and walk away with a gun with no background check. If I sell a gun online on a gun forum, I can't ship it directly to the person - I have to ship to his licensed dealer, the dealer has to do a NICS check on the person, and if he is cleared he can acquire the gun. Any private firearm sale should require a background check of the buyer. That is COMMON SENSE gun legislation.

Why is the NRA opposed to this? Why would anyone be opposed to this? Give me one legitimate reason why private gun sales should not be required to have a background check of the purchaser?

Give me one legitimate reason why a person on a no-fly list should be allowed to buy a gun.

There are common sense gun "control" laws that could be implemented that most people and even most NRA members would agree with. Problem is, too many people and lawmakers hear "gun control" and their assholes pucker up because they believe the NRA fear-mongering and misinformation.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 10:22 AM
 
^^^



OAW
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 10:24 AM
 
^^^



besson3c
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's why the NRA is organized by state, no other state knows the other's members, and the lists are encrypted (would take decades to brute force).
How certain can you be of that though? Any large company or organisation's customer list is among its most valuable assets. I'll buy the encryption, but I'd be surprised if HQ didn't have access to the full list.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Nothing.

Look, I'm a gun owner. I own several guns, both pistols and rifles. I just submitted forms to the ATF to make a short-barreled rifle and I'm going to get a suppressor soon. I strongly support the right of people to keep and bear arms. I think the NFA is outdated and ridiculous and to make an SBR or buy a suppressor should take no more than a background check - not require submitting forms to the ATF, paying a $200 tax, and waiting 6+ months before the form gets approved before I can take possession.

That said, I believe the NRA political branch is comprised of a bunch of paranoid, fear-mongering, idiots.

There ARE common sense gun laws that could be implemented that would not infringe on our rights.

As an example, the so called "gun show loophole". Many (most) people don't understand what this is. It refers to the fact that I can go to a gun show and buy a gun from an INDIVIDUAL (not a dealer) walking around with guns for sale and he would not have to carry out a background check. I give him money, he gives me a gun. That's idiotic.

I think we can all agree that someone shouldn't be able to walk up to some random person and walk away with a gun with no background check. If I sell a gun online on a gun forum, I can't ship it directly to the person - I have to ship to his licensed dealer, the dealer has to do a NICS check on the person, and if he is cleared he can acquire the gun. Any private firearm sale should require a background check of the buyer. That is COMMON SENSE gun legislation.

Why is the NRA opposed to this? Why would anyone be opposed to this? Give me one legitimate reason why private gun sales should not be required to have a background check of the purchaser?

Give me one legitimate reason why a person on a no-fly list should be allowed to buy a gun.

There are common sense gun "control" laws that could be implemented that most people and even most NRA members would agree with. Problem is, too many people and lawmakers hear "gun control" and their assholes pucker up because they believe the NRA fear-mongering and misinformation.
Nice to hear from a rational gun owner for a change but I think the paranoia starts a level lower than you think. The NRA creates and drives it, because thats what they are paid to do. The politicians who panic are being bribed (lobbied) and scared at the same time. The manufacturers are the ones who want to prevent as many restrictions as possible because it helps them sell more guns.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The tories have tried to repeal our human rights act once already.
Last I heard they weren't trying to repeal it at all, they wanted to revise it because in its current state it fosters a PC culture that leads to countless frivolous lawsuits, that the crown has to pay to both prosecute and defend.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
How certain can you be of that though? Any large company or organisation's customer list is among its most valuable assets. I'll buy the encryption, but I'd be surprised if HQ didn't have access to the full list.
Because the membership isn't organized on a national level at all, it's by state. (Think "bundle of sticks".)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Nice to hear from a rational gun owner for a change but I think the paranoia starts a level lower than you think. The NRA creates and drives it, because thats what they are paid to do. The politicians who panic are being bribed (lobbied) and scared at the same time. The manufacturers are the ones who want to prevent as many restrictions as possible because it helps them sell more guns.
As I said, I agree about the NRA. I'm a member, but I don't listen to or buy into to their fear-mongering. In fact, the NRA will tout their membership numbers to strike fear in politicians, but MOST of those people are simply members of the NRA and don't necessarily hold the same views as the NRA political side. I guarantee I'm not alone as an NRA member who would or would not vote for candidate because the NRA tells me to.

And I don't think manufacturers would be opposed to private sales of guns requiring a background check. They have already got their money on the initial sale and have no money to be made or lost in a private sale. If anything, they should be FOR background checks on private sales because if I have to get a background check anyway, why not purchase from a dealer and get a brand new gun (which is more money in the manufacture's pocket)?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
As an example, the so called "gun show loophole". Many (most) people don't understand what this is. It refers to the fact that I can go to a gun show and buy a gun from an INDIVIDUAL (not a dealer) walking around with guns for sale and he would not have to carry out a background check. I give him money, he gives me a gun. That's idiotic.

I think we can all agree that someone shouldn't be able to walk up to some random person and walk away with a gun with no background check. If I sell a gun online on a gun forum, I can't ship it directly to the person - I have to ship to his licensed dealer, the dealer has to do a NICS check on the person, and if he is cleared he can acquire the gun. Any private firearm sale should require a background check of the buyer. That is COMMON SENSE gun legislation.

Why is the NRA opposed to this? Why would anyone be opposed to this? Give me one legitimate reason why private gun sales should not be required to have a background check of the purchaser?
Which is extremely rare (<.5% of guns sold), so rare that it's usually only seen when dealing with older, collectible guns, that aren't used for shooting of any kind, and the vast majority of states require an FFL to buy them like that in the first place. As usual, there are already laws on the books for this, so maybe instead of drafting new ones, AGs should prosecute the violations that already occur but they choose to ignore, even in places as supposedly liberal as New York and California. Also straw purchases are already illegal, with a heavy fine and serious jail time for those who participate in it.

Give me one legitimate reason why a person on a no-fly list should be allowed to buy a gun.
Because the "no fly" list isn't solely comprised of criminals and whackos and has a much lower barrier to entry than the NICS (National Instant criminal background Check System), and unlike the bullshit that groups such as BLM complains about, actually does disproportionately target certain races and ethnicities.

There are common sense gun "control" laws that could be implemented that most people and even most NRA members would agree with. Problem is, too many people and lawmakers hear "gun control" and their assholes pucker up because they believe the NRA fear-mongering and misinformation.
We don't enforce the mountain of laws we already have regarding firearms, how will new laws change that?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Which is extremely rare, so rare that it's usually only seen when dealing with older, collectible guns, that aren't used for shooting of any kind, and the vast majority of states require an FFL to buy them like that in the first place. As usual, there are already laws on the books for this, so maybe instead of drafting new ones, AGs should prosecute the violations that already occur but they choose to ignore, even in places as supposedly liberal as New York and California. Also straw purchases are already illegal, with a heavy fine and jail time for those who participate in it.
It is NOT rare - it happens at every gun show in the country and outside of gun shows on a daily basis. There are no numbers to cite because they are not required to be reported, no NICS check, and no documentation is required. ANY gun, old or new, collectible or not collectible, pistol or rifle, can be sold in a private transaction between two individuals with NO BACKGROUND CHECK. It happens all the time. Go to any gun forum and look at the classifieds. See those "Face to face only" ads? Yeah, no background check required.

Straw purchases are a completely different thing entirely. If I buy a gun from an individual for my personal use, that's not a straw purchase and I can do it without a background check. If I can do it, what's stopping someone who otherwise wouldn't pass a NICS check from doing it?

And you didn't answer the simple question - give one reason why private firearm sales shouldn't require a background check. That there are a "mountain of laws" already is not a reason.

Because the "no fly" list isn't solely comprised of criminals and whackos and has a much lower barrier to entry than the NICS (National Instant criminal background Check System).
Really? Who else might be on a no-fly list? Source?

We don't enforce the mountain of laws we already have regarding firearms, how will new laws change that?
Because new laws can address things that current laws don't, e.g., background check for private sales.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 02:55 PM
 
I'm not entirely against background checks, but requiring them for private sales would mean the NICS database becomes, for all intents and purposes, public record.

I feel there could be some privacy issues with that.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm not entirely against background checks, but requiring them for private sales would mean the NICS database becomes, for all intents and purposes, public record.

I feel there could be some privacy issues with that.
Not sure I understand. NICS background checks are not public record and I'm not sure why using them for private sales would make them so.

As it is now, if you buy a gun from a licensed dealer you fill out an ATF Form 4343 and they submit for NICS check. Once it is approved, the NICS system does not keep a record. It's a background check, not a database of gun purchases.

For private gun sales, seller and prospective buyer would meet at a licensed dealer. Buyer would fill out an ATF Form 4343 and submit for NICS check. If they are approved, they are given the gun. I don't see how that would be any different than the current system for dealer/buyer purchases.

Seller would also have a bill of sale (as most do now in private sales) documenting the sale so if that gun is ever used in a crime and the gun serial number traced back to them they have documentation that they sold it.

Look, I'm sure people can come up with all kinds of "reasons" not to do it. But I don't find any of them convincing. The benefits, i.e., keeping more guns out of the hands of people who can't pass a NICS background check, would far outweigh the negatives and inconveniences.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Because new laws can address things that current laws don't, e.g., background check for private sales.
That's the entire point, in states where private sales are already illegal unless you have a FFL, which is most of them, what will that accomplish? Those laws are already being ignored and present crimes aren't prosecuted, even when they have evidence. How do you propose stopping private sales that have no paper trail? No way of the gov't knowing about them in the first place? You'll only create a "war on guns" that would make the failed war on drugs look tame in comparison, as people react to what they perceive as the gov't trying to grab their guns.

Edit: oh yeah, and the group I'm thinking about that is disproportionately represented on the "no fly" list is Muslims.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:26 PM
 
One thing I proposed was a federal mobile app that runs an electronic check for private sales, the seller gets the potential buyer's details and runs a quick BG check, but I believe some legislators would lose their shit over anything that convenient.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Not sure I understand. NICS background checks are not public record and I'm not sure why using them for private sales would make them so.
First, I want to make clear I'm not an expert on gun sales. I'm not making declarations based on how things are, I'm making assumptions. Corrections are expected and requested.

What I'm saying would become public record is the information in the database, which as you point out, isn't whether someone owns a gun. This isn't the private information I'm concerned about being made public, it's whether a person is a felon, or had a doctor say they were a fruitcake.

If all private sales are going to require a NICS check, then you basically have to let everyone into the NICS database. Anyone could check anyone.


As for whether there's a master list of guns, one would imagine that's one of the places that form you send the ATF goes.


Again, if I've misrepresented anything, I am relying on you to correct me.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
One thing I proposed was a federal mobile app that runs an electronic check for private sales, the seller gets the potential buyer's details and runs a quick BG check, but I believe some legislators would lose their cheat over anything that convenient.

If this was proposed I guarantee you you'd have people complaining about their constitutional rights being challenged because of needing a smartphone and/or data plan for this.

Some people just don't seem to be interested in being reasonable.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:37 PM
 
Of course a few would, no one will ever be perfectly happy, but an indicator of a good compromise is that people on both sides aren't.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 03:42 PM
 
When I've got both sides yelling at me, I know I'm onto something.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 04:15 PM
 
I was actually expecting you to dig in and claim that the gun show loophole is a non-issue, Tightpants. You surprise me sometimes.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
First, I want to make clear I'm not an expert on gun sales. I'm not making declarations based on how things are, I'm making assumptions. Corrections are expected and requested.

What I'm saying would become public record is the information in the database, which as you point out, isn't whether someone owns a gun. This isn't the private information I'm concerned about being made public, it's whether a person is a felon, or had a doctor say they were a fruitcake.

If all private sales are going to require a NICS check, then you basically have to let everyone into the NICS database. Anyone could check anyone.


As for whether there's a master list of guns, one would imagine that's one of the places that form you send the ATF goes.


Again, if I've misrepresented anything, I am relying on you to correct me.
Someone can (and will!) correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that when a check is conducted the response is either Approved, Disapproved, or Delay. If disapproved, I don't believe the dealer sees why. If Delay, it usually means they need more time to check something (I get delayed all the time).

So I don't think that private information is ever conveyed to whomever performed the check. It's simply an Approval or Disapproval. If disapproved, the buyer can request more information as to why, but not the dealer. At least that's my understanding.

And even dealers aren't "let into the NICS database". They simply fill out a form online, submit the information provided by the buyer, and receive a response. They don't see any information about the buyer other than what is required to be put on the form.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2016, 05:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Someone can (and will!) correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that when a check is conducted the response is either Approved, Disapproved, or Delay. If disapproved, I don't believe the dealer sees why. If Delay, it usually means they need more time to check something (I get delayed all the time).

So I don't think that private information is ever conveyed to whomever performed the check. It's simply an Approval or Disapproval. If disapproved, the buyer can request more information as to why, but not the dealer. At least that's my understanding.

And even dealers aren't "let into the NICS database". They simply fill out a form online, submit the information provided by the buyer, and receive a response. They don't see any information about the buyer other than what is required to be put on the form.
Okay, that's certainly better than if it revealed details, however I don't feel it entirely eliminates the privacy issue. A disapproval on that could be used against people for things other then them trying to purchase a gun.

That can happen now, but needing a dealer license sandboxes it a bit. If it's required for private sales, there's nothing to stop a potential employer running one and using it against you, or if there was something to stop them, it would likely get complicated.

To be clear, I'm not denying the policy as is has a truck sized loophole in it, nor am I insisting the policy remain unchanged. My goal is to provide the non-batshit reasons for why maybe this should be approached with caution.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2016, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay, that's certainly better than if it revealed details, however I don't feel it entirely eliminates the privacy issue. A disapproval on that could be used against people for things other then them trying to purchase a gun.

That can happen now, but needing a dealer license sandboxes it a bit. If it's required for private sales, there's nothing to stop a potential employer running one and using it against you, or if there was something to stop them, it would likely get complicated.

To be clear, I'm not denying the policy as is has a truck sized loophole in it, nor am I insisting the policy remain unchanged. My goal is to provide the non-batshit reasons for why maybe this should be approached with caution.
The idea is that one would have to go to a dealer to have the NICS check performed so it would be no different than buying directly from the dealer except the money goes to the private seller, not the dealer.

I'm not suggesting that the NICS check system be opened up for anyone to use to make background checks on people. Still only people with an FFL would access and use it.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2016, 04:28 PM
 
So it would be, in effect, illegal for a gun to be sold without a dealer being involved?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2016, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
As I said, I agree about the NRA. I'm a member, but I don't listen to or buy into to their fear-mongering. In fact, the NRA will tout their membership numbers to strike fear in politicians, but MOST of those people are simply members of the NRA and don't necessarily hold the same views as the NRA political side. I guarantee I'm not alone as an NRA member who would or would not vote for candidate because the NRA tells me to.
For the record I wasn't suggesting you let anyone tell you how to vote, but they certainly seem to tell politicians how to vote on various bills and proposals.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
And I don't think manufacturers would be opposed to private sales of guns requiring a background check. They have already got their money on the initial sale and have no money to be made or lost in a private sale. If anything, they should be FOR background checks on private sales because if I have to get a background check anyway, why not purchase from a dealer and get a brand new gun (which is more money in the manufacture's pocket)?
I don't think the manufacturers would necessarily be against background checks on private sales in principle, but I think the fear they pay for that surrounds any change to gun legislation is worth more to them. Also I think less regulations mean higher resale value, and a higher resale value helps maintain higher sale prices. You'll pay a little more for it if you know you can sell it for a better price in a pinch. Middlemen and paperwork increase the hassle and the fees which will impact your resale.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2016, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So it would be, in effect, illegal for a gun to be sold without a dealer being involved?
For all intents and purposes, yes. It would be illegal for Joe Blow A to sell a firearm to Joe Blow B, whom he doesn't know from Adam, without going to someone with an FFL and having them submit a NICS check on the buyer.

A lot of (most) internet sales of firearms by individuals go through an FFL anyway. The seller ships to the FFL of the buyer and the buyer goes and has a NICS check and picks up the firearm.

This only addresses face-to-face transactions between individuals where no shipping is involved (it's already illegal for an individual to ship a firearm to someone without an FFL).

Look, I'm spit-balling here. I don't know what all the logistics would be, how it would be enforced, etc. That's for politicians to figure out.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2016, 08:15 AM
 
Maybe I'm misreading this, but the data protection protocols seem kinda weak.

"We keep the records forever, but you can trust us not to do anything bad."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/25.9


The FISA court had (still has?) a similar set up for warrantless wiretaps. If one was denied you just pretend you didn't hear anything...

Riiiiiight.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2016, 08:30 AM
 
Since I'm pulling out the tinfoil hat, I want to make clear I'm not concerned about the current government doing something bad with the database of NICS checks. That comes down the line. We can't really be assured of what kind of government we're going to have in 25-50 years.

Frankly, we can't be assured of what kind of government we'll have in six months.


That said, I know they're doing bad shit with warrantless wiretaps. Like, right now.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2016, 12:13 PM
 
Im not well versed in the gun control debate, and have never owned a gun myself(nor do i plan to).

How do those who are pushing the gun-control angle after the recent islamic terrorist attack explain all the stabbings which have been taking place in Israel over the past year? Israelis have one of the highest number of households with guns, AND restrict guns in Judea and Samaria.

Would the logical deduction be to impose knife-controls in Judea and Samaria?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2016, 12:30 PM
 
Can you kill 50 people in under a minute with a knife?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2016, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Can you kill 50 people in under a minute with a knife?
The Chinese can, definity. It's part of their Kung-Fu powers.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 14, 2016, 06:51 AM
 
I think the knives, like prison shivs are easier to sneak past security checkpoints than AK-47s are.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2016, 02:45 PM
 
Jeez! The idiot Democrats in the senate are AGAIN trying for more Gun Control, not realizing the CRIMINALS will not follow those or any laws. Until those idiots can explain how they plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals all of their efforts are a waste of everyones time. They are such broken records. Gun Bans, Gun free zones, etc have NEVER WORKED. Why don't liberals look at the results of their ideas/laws?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2016, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Jeez! The idiot Democrats in the senate are AGAIN trying for more Gun Control, not realizing the CRIMINALS will not follow those or any laws. Until those idiots can explain how they plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals all of their efforts are a waste of everyones time. They are such broken records. Gun Bans, Gun free zones, etc have NEVER WORKED. Why don't liberals look at the results of their ideas/laws?
This is such a tired and quite frankly silly argument. By this "logic" we shouldn't have any gun control legislation at all. No bans on convicted violent felons from owning firearms because since they are "criminals [they] will not follow those or any laws". So why bother right?

Which is especially odd since right here you agreed that someone on the Terrorist Watch list should NOT be allowed to legally purchase a firearm. So why are your panties in a wad since that's the only new gun control legislation that's even being proposed? Legislation that the GOP blocked just as recently as Dec. 2015. The point being that had such legislation NOT been killed this nut job wouldn't have been able to just waltz into any gun shop and acquire a firearm of any sort. Especially an AR-15. He would have been FORCED to do a back-alley deal. We all know if he was determined to do this he could very well do that. But the point is to not make it EASY for such individuals to acquire such weapons. Because some may not be that determined or lack the street connections to do it that way. And that just might save some lives.

But for the sake of discussion say there was a concerted effort taking place to restore the assault weapons ban. Let's look at the numbers ....

If we look from September 2004 all the way back to 1900 (104 years), as the Washington Post lays out, there were 118 mass shootings. That breaks down to 1.13 mass shooting incidents per year, on average, from 1900 to 2004. In the eight years since the Assault Weapons Ban has expired, there have been 28 mass shooting events. That equals an average of 3.5 a year—an increase of over 200 percent. That is a startling jump, by any measure.

If we further break down the years both Mother Jones and the Washington Post use, the statistics remain similar. From 1982 to 1994 (12 years), there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year.

From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year. While some will point out that the ban did not reduce the number of shootings, on average, it is important to bear in mind that the ten-year period of the ban is a small sample size. There were five incidents in 1999 alone; the Columbine Massacre occurred in April 1999, and four other mass shooting incidents followed soon after. There is evidence that events like Columbine can inspire other mass shootings, so without Columbine and the following “copy-cat” events, the number of shooting incidents during the Assault Weapons Ban would have been significantly lower.

What is an undeniable truth is that we have seen an incredible uptick of mass shootings since the ban expired on September 14, 2004. To be fair, it also is a small sample size, and 2012 was an exceptionally tragic year, but the fact remains that the number of shootings has gone up over 200 percent since the ban expired.

So, was Clinton accurate? Have half of the nation’s mass shootings occurred since the Assault Weapons Ban expired? No, it’s more like a quarter.

The Washington Post, however, is splitting hairs where they don’t need to be split. The facts are that since the Assault Weapons Ban there have been 28 mass shooting events in eight short years. Seven of these shootings took place in 2012; at Sandy Hook, 20 students and 6 faculty members lost their lives.

Do we have to nitpick on an embellishment by President Clinton in which he makes an important point? President Clinton is essentially correct—since the Assault Weapons Ban expired, mass shootings have grown rapidly in frequency and fatalities. Shouldn’t we focus on ensuring the frequency of these tragic incidences falls, rather than cavil over the smaller stuff?
The Assault Weapons Ban: Did It Curtail Mass Shootings? | The Century Foundation

Clearly the assault Weapons ban had a negligible impact on gun deaths overall. And that's to be expected because most gun violence is committed with handguns. No one is even suggesting that except gun nuts making straw-man arguments. But the numbers unequivocally show that since the assault weapons ban expired the time of mass shootings we have just experienced has gone through the roof. Now if you are cool with that development on constitutional grounds that's fine. Just say that outright. Personally I find the argument to be unpersuasive since we certainly didn't witness any sort of threat to the Republic when the assault weapons was in place. The sky remains above us. But if constitutional concerns about what might, possibly, perhaps happen by a tyrannical government run amok outweighs the very obvious real-world consequences that have actually ensued since the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire for you then cool. But again ... just stand on that and don't try to make that same old tired argument about "criminals" in this situation.

OAW

PS: Because now only after the worst mass shooting in US history ideology is finally taking a back seat to common sense.

Trump, GOP lawmakers open door to restricting gun buys for those on watch list | FoxNews.com
( Last edited by OAW; Jun 15, 2016 at 04:33 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 15, 2016, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Jeez! The idiot Democrats in the senate are AGAIN trying for more Gun Control, not realizing the CRIMINALS will not follow those or any laws. Until those idiots can explain how they plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals all of their efforts are a waste of everyones time. They are such broken records. Gun Bans, Gun free zones, etc have NEVER WORKED. Why don't liberals look at the results of their ideas/laws?
All your words are a waste of everyone's time.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 03:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Jeez! The idiot Democrats in the senate are AGAIN trying for more Gun Control, not realizing the CRIMINALS will not follow those or any laws. Until those idiots can explain how they plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals all of their efforts are a waste of everyones time. They are such broken records. Gun Bans, Gun free zones, etc have NEVER WORKED. Why don't liberals look at the results of their ideas/laws?
They're scared and don't know what to do*, also the need to disarm others is a power trip.

(*It's tied to the "progressive" need to move forward, even if it's in the wrong direction.)

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
All your words are a waste of everyone's time.
Then don't read them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They're scared and don't know what to do*, also the need to disarm others is a power trip.
You can see it in their faces. Its one of the few things you can see they care about and are telling the truth about. Its no power trip.
Brainwashed.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
(*It's tied to the "progressive" need to move forward, even if it's in the wrong direction.)
Yeah because the rest of the civilised world deeply regrets we don't see thousands of our innocent civilians killed every year at the behest of huge corporations profits.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 07:10 AM
 
So you ASSume that the NRA is about large corporate profits! You know SO MUCH that is wrong.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
All your words are a waste of everyone's time.
So are your uninformed opinions you state as facts. Your fictional stereotypes also make your assumptions even more laughable.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 08:08 AM
 
It's about time congress stood up against the NRA and stimulated debate over measures to reduce gun violence.

If guns don't kill people but people kill people, one would think new background check measures could be something we could all agree upon if not for the NRA. They may have a minor impact, but trying something as far as tracking the people that guns are sold to is better than doing nothing.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 08:26 AM
 
Really, what is the issue with barring people on terrorism watch lists from buying guns, or not putting people who make private or online gun sales through the same background check? This should be a complete no-brainer.

It might be criticized as not accomplish much, but it certainly isn't going to make things worse, and clearly baby steps must be taken first.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 08:33 AM
 
Why are those ON the terror watch list even IN THIS COUNTRY? How do the names get there? WHO suggests who's name goes on the list? What procedures are in place to MAKE SURE you don't violate their rights? Hand wringing much?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You can see it in their faces. Its one of the few things you can see they care about and are telling the truth about. Its no power trip.
Brainwashed.
They're brainwashed instead of it being a power trip? No, those smug looks are too much of a clear giveaway.

Yeah because the rest of the civilised world deeply regrets we don't see thousands of our innocent civilians killed every year at the behest of huge corporations profits.
Paris, London (7/7), Brussels, Sydney, Tel-Aviv, Kunming, Aksu... it's almost as if you don't pay attention to what happens in the rest of the world, living in the deluded belief that disarming the citizenry means that violence will magically end. Talk about brainwashing...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 01:11 PM
 
So Besson, when did your name end up on the list? Ted Kennedy had to pressure some folks to get his name off the list and it took months. So what system to verify ALL those on the list? The current administration isn't trustworthy and smart enough to do any such thing. You realize NONE of the lefts big ideas are workable?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 01:50 PM
 
The issue of whether the list is accurate, fair, or guilty of stereotyping is a whole nuther kettle of fish, badkosh. For every false positive on the list, with whom I have sympathy for their battle with red tape, there are tons more people that deserve to be on there, and they shouldn't be able to buy guns from Walmart.
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,