Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

easysauce wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Yes, if you put an auto sear into a semiauto AR-15, you have an auto AR-15. Those things aren't just lying around, though.

absolutely 100% false, you know nothing about how an AR-15 works, the auto sear wont even fit in the lower of a semi-auto AR-15. You need a machine shop to alter the lower significantly so it fits.

Which is probably why I said you need a machine shop earlier in this thread in order to do so.

Oh look. It's the "cars can kill people too" BS. How about we regulate guns like cars and pharmaceuticals then?

And maybe fething listen to what we are saying. Because this would be the fething 4th time I (plus the times she has said so) have said this: Just because something is designed with the primary purpose to injure and kill doesn't mean that is the only thing it can be used for. But lets quit pretending that this was not their designed purpose. If you don't then that's fine. But there are plenty of people giving the "it's just a harmless tool" line. A car has a primary purpose that doesn't involve killing, but it is dangerous. A hammer had a primary purpose that doesn't involve killing, but it is dangerous. Pharmaceuticals have a primary purpose that doesn't involve killing, but they are dangerous. Guns have a primary purpose, that doesn't mean you have to use them for that, and they are dangerous.

But yeah, if we want to compare guns to cars, who have a primary purpose other than to inflict injury, then go ahead. We will institute tests before you can operate one, mandatory licensing of ownership with renewals every 5 years, mandatory registration of all firearms with yearly fees and inspections and mandatory insurance or your firearm gets confiscated. Or we can quit pretending that these two are alike.

I have never advocated for banning guns, I think people who do are stupid. I also think people who minimize what guns are designed to do are stupid too.

 d-usa wrote:
But yeah, if we want to compare guns to cars, who have a primary purpose other than to inflict injury, then go ahead. We will institute tests before you can operate one, mandatory licensing of ownership with renewals every 5 years, mandatory registration of all firearms with yearly fees and inspections and mandatory insurance or your firearm gets confiscated.

Well, if you go that route, then there's the fact that your right to drive isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution.

 d-usa wrote:
Or we can quit pretending that these two are alike.

I'm not sure that the argument is that they're alike, it's just to say that there are products in every day use that are statistically more dangerous.

Yes, things can be more dangerous. And we are okay with passing laws to try to make things less dangerous.

 d-usa wrote:
Yes, things can be more dangerous. And we are okay with passing laws to try to make things less dangerous.

And has been argued, we are ok with laws that will get the job done, and work, while not infringing on our rights.

Gunshow background checks. Fine.

I would almost be ok with requiring a safety course to be taken before purchasing. There would have to be a lot done though before I could get behind it though. Make it a tax exemption so people aren't shouldered with the extra burden of the cost. Don't make it overly burdensome. Illinois requires a Hunter Safety Course to be attended to buy a hunting license. There is only a few locations in the state that offer one, and it's near impossible to get into them. They'd have to be easily accessable for everyone to attend, or having a system kind of like Michigans apprentice hunter stuff. You don't need to take the course if you can document that you've been trained by an experienced friend or family member.

Arbitrarily banning scary looking guns though, are not making anything less dangerous. Magazine restrictions do not make them less dangerous. Quite frankly, very few laws out there will, because just like cars, it comes down to the person's own sense of responsibility to determine how dangerous the things are.

There are lots of things that could be done that don't infringe on our rights though.

Heck, even the big scary boogieman of "register all guns" wouldn't infringe on our rights. It's just the paranoia of "if the government knows I have guns they will probably take them away from me, maybe, possibly, who knows, better not risk it..." I don't think that universal registration is an answer, but that is the kind of mindset that makes almost all reform impossible.

Assault Rifle (aka: daddy that gun looks scary) bans are dumb. The laws we already have cover true assault rifles already, and there doesn't need to be any more on that. Same with the whole magazine size push.

Stuff I think would work, or at least help:

1) The Universal Background Checks.
2) Actually keep records: At least from sellers. Find out where a lot of the guns used in crimes are coming from. You don't have to track owners, just track who sells guns. Most of them are not stolen, most of them don't come from Mexico. Most of them are purchased by straw-men. Find out who is selling to them.
3) Actually let inspectors inspect. Repeal the laws that forbid more than one inspection a year. Bad sellers know that they are in the clear as soon as they are inspected.
4) Let the ATF hire some people.

Oklahoma has the same requirement for hunters education. But we also have a lot of classes that are offered, and we even have an options to basically get a "learners permit" hunting license where you can go hunt with a seasoned hunter for a year and then get a real license. Much better than Illinois. Of course Illinois is the short-bus state of gun laws.

Well said, djones.

The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.

Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.

Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Well said, djones.

The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.

It was more then background checks... as is usual with our Congress, more was shoved in there then "just background checks".

 Monster Rain wrote:
The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.

It didn't pass because it was part of a far more onerous package. While the proposal itself could have gone through with the others defeated, the fact that it was one of many gave the NRA all the ammo it needed to mobilize supporters. I do honestly wonder how many on the anti-gun side actually called their legislators to voice their support. I know the pro-gun side did not lack for numbers doing that.

When all was said and done, the one that came closest to passing - only three votes shy - was national concealed carry permit reciprocity, which would have been a huge win for my side of the argument. I find that endlessly amusing.

 djones520 wrote:
Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.

Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.

And while I still don't think it's the big scary monster it is made out to be, what about the things I said that I would actually be okay with?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Well said, djones.

The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.

It was more then background checks... as is usual with our Congress, more was shoved in there then "just background checks".

One of the more sensible pro 2nd Amendment groups supported it though. It had a lot of provisions that strengthened gun rights.

 d-usa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.

Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.

And while I still don't think it's the big scary monster it is made out to be, what about the things I said that I would actually be okay with?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Well said, djones.

The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.

It was more then background checks... as is usual with our Congress, more was shoved in there then "just background checks".

One of the more sensible pro 2nd Amendment groups supported it though. It had a lot of provisions that strengthened gun rights.

All in all your proposals should be ok. As long as the citizen themselve doesn't have to worry about the ATF knocking on the door asking to see the guns we purchased, fine. Leave the burden on the folks selling them. I think the threat of straw buyers is a bit overstated, but if we can crack down on it, without causing to much "growth" in the agencies doing it, then it couldn't hurt. Before giving more power to the ATF though, I'd want to see them streamlined a bit. There is no shortage of evidence that the ATF couldn't find it's own ass with a manual and three helpers.

As for the other measures, put them all out there one at a time. When it comes to something in that bill of rights you don't just say "We'll give you this for that."

Well, unless its the Patriot Act...

 whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The privilege to own a gun.

And that's where you've lost.

It's not a privilege to own a gun.

So you believe that everyone who wants to should be able to obtain a gun no matter where they are or what they've done?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's test that theory out. Muhammad Yusuf, a natural-born US citizen living just outside of Washington DC who is descended from a devoutly Muslim Iranian family, decides one day to buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a telescopic sight, and a silencer..

Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his right as an American citizen?

Or perhaps Jose Francrasio, born and raised in El Paso, Texas, wants to buy an MP5 with silencer during a build-up in violence amongst drug cartels and border patrol agents, including notable uses of illegally modified submachine guns by the drug cartels.

Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?


Or perhaps John Smith, born in the USA to a long line of Americans, who was recently fired from his job and had a messy divorce from his wife, decides to buy a shotgun, an AR-15, and two handguns, along with massive amount of ammunition for each (including some mis-matched ammunition). He lives in an apartment downtown after the divorce and his wife won custody, and angrily responds to questions about why he wants to buy this many guns.

Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The privilege to own a gun.

And that's where you've lost.

It's not a privilege to own a gun.

So you believe that everyone who wants to should be able to obtain a gun no matter where they are or what they've done?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's test that theory out. Muhammad Yusuf, a natural-born US citizen living just outside of Washington DC who is descended from a devoutly Muslim Iranian family, decides one day to buy a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a telescopic sight, and a silencer..

Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his right as an American citizen?

Or perhaps Jose Francrasio, born and raised in El Paso, Texas, wants to buy an MP5 with silencer during a build-up in violence amongst drug cartels and border patrol agents, including notable uses of illegally modified submachine guns by the drug cartels.

Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?


Or perhaps John Smith, born in the USA to a long line of Americans, who was recently fired from his job and had a messy divorce from his wife, decides to buy a shotgun, an AR-15, and two handguns, along with massive amount of ammunition for each (including some mis-matched ammunition). He lives in an apartment downtown after the divorce and his wife won custody, and angrily responds to questions about why he wants to buy this many guns.

Should he be allowed to do so without question, suspicion, or restriction, because it's his inherent right as an American citizen?

all the males in your example actually are subject to many questions and restrictions under current US law. Suppressors (silencers) are not candy, nor are handed out as such, neither are guns, last I checked stores run background checks, check your ID and often have waiting periods. The Mp5 is also a full auto weapon, and again, not handed out like candy in the first place.

How do you propose to differentiate between someone who buys a shotgun, an AR-15, and two handguns, with lots of ammo, from say a three gunner? that kind of purchase is not uncommon.
Should people who are fired and divorced even be allowed to buy guns, because obviously no one was ever happy to lose their job or wife/husband. Should women who lose their job or are divorced be suspected of only wanting them to go shoot people with?

In canada, to get a pistol, your wife(husband), and even ex wife(husband), has to sign off on the permit application. Doesn't affect domestic violence one bit, and the criminals don't fill out the papers. Despite needing a license to get any gun, and having to have it registered, locked in a case and trigger locked at all times when not on a range, the vast majority of gun crime is done with guns 100% outside of the system (black market). The only good thing that came about from Canadian restrictions on gun ownership was that it finally proved lawful owners were not a significant source of gun crime, and that laws restricting lawful owners have no significant effect on crime.

The Mp5 is also a full auto weapon

It has a semi-automatic variant, which is legal to sell.

Come on Whembly, this is basic stuff.

Also? Thank you for confirming that you don't really believe that these men have a right to own those weapons.

 Melissia wrote:

The Mp5 is also a full auto weapon

It has a semi-automatic variant, which is legal to sell.

Come on Whembly, this is basic stuff.

Also? Thank you for confirming that you don't really believe that these men have a right to own those weapons.

O.o

I assure you me and easysauce ain't the same person.

 Melissia wrote:

The Mp5 is also a full auto weapon

It has a semi-automatic variant, which is legal to sell.

Come on Whembly, this is basic stuff.

the semi variant of the MP5(mp5 is a full auto) is the HK51. Different names, different guns, but look the same, just like AR-15's are not M16's even though they look the same, they are in fact different model #'s and guns completely.

come on this is basic stuff, you wouldn't call a pinto with a porche body kit a porche would you?


oh and my name isnt whembly, also basic stuff,

 Melissia wrote:
No. Try reading for once in your life.

take your own advice,

the right to own a gun for men and women is right there, under our right to free speech.


edit: maybe you should take a few gun classes melissa, im not sure you know as much as you think you do about them. how often do you even practice with your (dads) guns? Do you really think you are in a expert enough position to be condescending to someone with decades of actual experience and hundreds of rounds downrange every weekend?
to the point of being blatantly wrong, and accusatory of me being a fake person even?
thats pretty paranoid, and you said your self you dont want paranoid untrained people with guns.

easysauce wrote:
the right to own a gun for men and women is right there, under our right to free speech.

That's debatable.

A person in prison can still speak out and still has the right to free speech, and they frequently do speak out-- although there's not always anyone there that actually wants to listen.

A person in prison cannot, however, own guns.

Tell me, which is a right and which isn't?

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
The privilege to own a gun.

And that's where you've lost.

It's not a privilege to own a gun.

So you believe that everyone who wants to should be able to obtain a gun no matter where they are or what they've done?

Go back and read my privilege vs rights post to Cheesecat...

easysauce wrote:
im not sure you know as much as you think you do about them

Nobody cares what you think.

 whembly wrote:
Go back and read my privilege vs rights post to Cheesecat...

No. It is not relevant to our discussion.

 djones520 wrote:
Except when you register, the government does try. It happened here in Illinois last year. The State Legislature tried to force the State Police to turn over all records of FOID holders. They wanted to know who all of us were.

Thankfully the State Police told them to go stuff it. But as Missouri showed recently, they don't always do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Well said, djones.

The background check thing is a no-brainer. I am baffled that it didn't pass.

It was more then background checks... as is usual with our Congress, more was shoved in there then "just background checks".

Guys... we HAVE fething background checks at Gun Shows... you know, the SAME ONE that the local gun stores use?

What this recent bill wanted to achieve is to force anyone selling their weapons to their friends/family.

It because a defecto "Gun Registration". That's bad ju-ju.

What djones was referring to in MIssouri is that someone in the State Police department GAVE the DOJ a list of all CCW permits. THAT'S illegal as hell... and heads are going to roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Go back and read my privilege vs rights post to Cheesecat...

No. It is not relevant to our discussion.

I'm trying to tell you why it's absolutely relevant.

Oh well... good luck.

 whembly wrote:
What this recent bill wanted to achieve is to force anyone selling their weapons to their friends/family.

Why should a criminal's or psychopath's family be able to freely hand over guns to them, without restriction or suspicion?

Certainly in my case it'd have been annoying having a background check conducted to receive my father's weapons, but I would have come up clean. But what if I was mentally unstable? You know, like many of the people who go shoot up schools or malls and commit mass murder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
I'm trying to tell you why it's absolutely relevant.

Oh well... good luck.

And I'm pointing out that your reliance on the definition of "rights" is bogus. Many things which we consider to be "rights" still have to be earned. Including many things that are protected by the constitution. Marriage is considered a right-- but the GBLT movement is struggling to earn it. Miscegeny is a right that people are free to obtain-- but it was EARNED by the civil rights movement. Same with the right to vote. We have to earn it, even if the standards these days are really low, we still do. Same with the various rights of the accused, or the right of equal protection under law.

I'm using the term privilege only because it drives home the fact that it was earned. But there's no distinguishable difference in this conversation.

 Melissia wrote:

easysauce wrote:
im not sure you know as much as you think you do about them

Nobody cares what you think.

 whembly wrote:
Go back and read my privilege vs rights post to Cheesecat...

No. It is not relevant to our discussion.

 Melissia wrote:

easysauce wrote:
the right to own a gun for men and women is right there, under our right to free speech.

That's debatable.

A person in prison can still speak out and still has the right to free speech, and they frequently do speak out-- although there's not always anyone there that actually wants to listen.

A person in prison cannot, however, own guns.

Tell me, which is a right and which isn't?

so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience in shooting sports, gunsmithing, ect is someone to be ignored,

but someone who has stated false facts about guns as true, (mp5s are illegal in the stated, the HK51 variant is a different gun) thinks a prisoner yelling to himself in a cell still has "free speech", cant tell two people apart, and generally counters facts with insults and emotional rants is?

You literally think a prisoner yelling alone to himself in a cell has free speech, so the 1st amendment doesn't cover the internet, radio, TV, mail, so those can be censored in your mind.

whats crazy is that your lack of expertise, combined with your obvious rage, paranoia, lack of respect for a a fellow poster, and ranting actually starting to convince me that you are not capable of owning guns and that maybe there should be stricter laws more then any argument you have made.

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What this recent bill wanted to achieve is to force anyone selling their weapons to their friends/family.

Why should a criminal's or psychopath's family be able to freely hand over guns to them, without restriction or suspicion?

Certainly in my case it'd have been annoying having a background check conducted to receive my father's weapons, but I would have come up clean. But what if I was mentally unstable? You know, like many of the people who go shoot up schools or malls and commit mass murder.

Because...

Well... I'll let the ACLU answer that:

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”
“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

I mean... wow... that was a fething rude awaking for the Democrats.

Shoot... The Deputy Director of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) noted in a recent internal memo that the effectiveness of universal background checks would “require gun registration”. (It also went on to note that “gun buybacks are ineffective”, that a high-capacity magazine ban wouldn’t have any discernible effect, that “assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime”, and that even a complete elimination of all “assault” weapons “would not have a large impact on gun homicides”.)

When your own Department of Justice thinks your ideas are bad ones, it’s time to move on.... dontcha think?

Even better, here's a survey asking 15,000+ law enforcement professionals asked about the relationship between recently-dead legislation proposals and violent crime. 79.6% of them said that expanded background checks would do nothing to reduce violent crime.

 whembly wrote:

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

Which is a problem with the lack of oversight in the National Counterterrorism Center which needs to be addressed. I do not agree with the ACLU that this is an argument against hte database, but rather, it's an argument for increased scrutiny of counter-terrorism efforts. Being a counter-terrorist unit does not give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want.

That does not, however, indicate that the database should not exist in the first place. We are not talking about tracking peoples' dildo purchases or attempting to monitor what books they read. These are deadly, dangerous weapons capable of maiming and killing numerous people in a short amount of time. They NEED to be regulated.

The quote you mentioned about police officers believing it to not be useful is one of the few things that you've posted that even comes close to convincing me of your argument. If, as you claim, it would not be useful to police, then you have a point.

easysauce wrote:
so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience

Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:

“We think that that kind of record-keeping requirement could result in keeping long-term detailed records of purchases and creation of a new government database.”

“And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.”

Which is a problem with the lack of oversight in the National Counterterrorism Center which needs to be addressed. I do not agree with the ACLU that this is an argument against hte database, but rather, it's an argument for increased scrutiny of counter-terrorism efforts. Being a counter-terrorist unit does not give one carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want.

That does not, however, indicate that the database should not exist in the first place. We are not talking about tracking peoples' dildo purchases or attempting to monitor what books they read. These are deadly, dangerous weapons capable of maiming and killing numerous people in a short amount of time. They NEED to be regulated.

The quote you mentioned about police officers believing it to not be useful is one of the few things that you've posted that even comes close to convincing me of your argument. If, as you claim, it would not be useful to police, then you have a point.

easysauce wrote:
so when talking about guns, someone with decades of experience

Please, everyone and their dead grandmother can claim to be an expert on anything over the internet.

Okay... then there's no point going forward.

You keep misconstruing "rights" vs "privilege"... but, that's okay as it's a very common misunderstanding.

 whembly wrote:
You keep misconstruing "rights" vs "privilege"... but, that's okay as it's a very common misunderstanding.

Funny, I'm saying the same thing about you

But as I said, you have a point about the effectiveness of it. If police believe that it would be ineffective and not very useful, I can see that as a valid argument against the database. Guns need to be regulated, but useless regulations are more a hindrance than a help.

 Melissia wrote:
Guns need to be regulated,

They are.

We've made it to your goal. Break out the party hats.

 Seaward wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Guns need to be regulated,

They are.

Not efficiently and effectively enough.

Neither side agrees that the current set of regulations is perfect. It's disingenuous to claim that you think it is considering your past arguments.

Owning guns is a privilege, as outlined in the first ten amendments of the Constitution known as the Bill of Privileges.

Oh yeah, that's not right at all.