The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > News & Political Discussion > Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 11, 2013, 21:35   #51
riffraff2
Curio & Relic
Platinum Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 54720
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
What I was saying was very clearly prefaced by saying that I do not know firsthand since I am not in those states. It was followed by me saying that I am used to basically being checked and double checked for all purchases - firearms or not. Before telling me to stay up in the northeast and getting hostile, read.

And honestly yes, if you are in a public place (which is anywhere that is not inside your house) you are required to do a background check in NY. At gun shows in most states you are required to go to a FFL table at the gun show and have them officiate the transaction.

No, carguy, I believe you are taking a few steps ahead of yourself. I was referring to selling a firearm at a gunshow. If I do a face to face sale to a New Yorker I am not required to go through an FFL or get a background check. But since I am a C&R holder I do photocopy the NY license of everyone I have ever sold a firearm to. Its good practice. Here's why: if I sell a gun to you and you go out and hurt someone with it and there is no record of who I sold it to then I could be on the hook.

I am used to it since that is the law here. It seems silly to me to do otherwise since it is the law here. To you it seems silly to do things the way they do them in NY and that is fine. In CA they are used to non-removable magazines and other things the rest of he country seems unprepared to deal with.

Up here in NY we still have an AWB. It never went away up here.

"At gun shows in most states you are required to go to a FFL table at the gun show and have them officiate the transaction". No, I believe you are wrong. At this time, in MOST states I am still pretty sure that if I attend a gun show with a rifle on my shoulder and a for sale tag on it and someone approaches me and says he would like to buy the gun then we make the deal right then and there and we DO NOT have to have any FFL officiate the deal.

Now I would never sell to ANYONE that I even had the SLIGHTEST suspicion was not on the up and up. At minimum I would want to see their IN STATE drivers license and would really like to look at their CHL but anyway, in MOST states, I, Joe Citizen(non FFL holder, no C&R, just Joe Citizen), can sell my gun to another Joe Citizen(non FFL holder, no C&R) and do NOT require the permission of a FFL or a Police department. That is the way I want it to STAY too. I would like to be able to call the NICS phone line to VERIFY that the Joe Citizen I am selling my gun to is OK and good to go but since that is not an option there ain't nothing I can do about it. So, you guys in NY just go ahead and keep PAYING a FFL each and every time you sell a gun and most of the rest of the country will NOT pay any money to a FFL just for the privelage of selling one of our guns. You like the way things are done in your state, FINE. Personally I don't want your NY crap in MY state thank you very much.
riffraff2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 21:44   #52
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 7,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
I'm not ok with registration and I'm not ok with background checks on ammo sales. I am explaining what goes on in NY.

Also, as I understand it the gunshow loophole is private sales, not from a dealer.


One step at a time-background checks on ammo would come later down the line..........


The gun show "loophole" is nothing but a private sale "loophole".Here in Iowa I always ask to see the carry permit to make sure they can legally have one,and the few firearms I have bought and sold have been to/from fellow permit holders.I remember buying the Swap Sheet every week and checking out the guns for sale,as well as the newspaper ads........

I spent the first 35 years of my life in that cesspool of a state,and have never,and will never go back.

It was my first experience of being screwed by a Republican as well-ol Governor Pataki that happily signed the state AWB you now enjoy.
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 21:58   #53
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguym14 View Post
The hell?

It's not a f*cking "loophole".It is buying and selling privately owned items.

When I lived in NY we were still allowed to buy and sell privately-maybe that has changed?

So what "reasonable" restrictions are you for that will (temporarily) quiet the liberals??All firearms sales thru a dealer?All ammunuition sales thru a dealer?All magazines over 10 rd capacity thru a dealer?

Pathetic.

If you cannot buy a firearm from a dealer without a background check or get something sent to your house when ordering it online, it is not simply "buying and selling privately owned items." Buy an AR from Aimsurplus and have it sent to your house.


All firearms sales through a dealer- nope didn't say that or anything close.
All ammunition through a dealer - nope didn't say that.
All magazines over 10 rounds through a dealer - nope didn't say that either.

No offense taken as long as you take what I am saying for what it is, if those that would want to kill your entire 2nd Amendment right would shut up for a while (long enough for you to prepare) wouldn't you settle for having to make a call to see if the guy you are selling a gun to is not a f'ing psycho or criminal? Would you knowingly sell a gun to a person convicted of a violent crime? Or a person that has had a history of psychiatric problems?
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:08   #54
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
As I said earlier I am not in a state where the supposed " gunshow loophole" exists. However, I believe it is a total of 17 states that have this. The other 33 states from what I understand require an FFL to officiate a sale at a gunshow.

That is my understanding. That is all.

I am forced to stay in New York because of family and the type of work I do. Nowhere else on earth could I do what I do and make what I make. That is my cross to bear. I accept that. For the length of time I have been here it as been this way and will not change.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:11   #55
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffraff2 View Post
You like the way things are done in your state, FINE. Personally I don't want your NY crap in MY state thank you very much.
Let's not get into that kind of thing. Didn't your state give us the Clintons? You know, the guy that was in charge during that first AWB.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:12   #56
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 7,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
If you cannot buy a firearm from a dealer without a background check or get something sent to your house when ordering it online, it is not simply "buying and selling privately owned items." Buy an AR from Aimsurplus and have it sent to your house.


All firearms sales through a dealer- nope didn't say that or anything close.
All ammunition through a dealer - nope didn't say that.
All magazines over 10 rounds through a dealer - nope didn't say that either.

No offense taken as long as you take what I am saying for what it is, if those that would want to kill your entire 2nd Amendment right would shut up for a while (long enough for you to prepare) wouldn't you settle for having to make a call to see if the guy you are selling a gun to is not a f'ing psycho or criminal? Would you knowingly sell a gun to a person convicted of a violent crime? Or a person that has had a history of psychiatric problems?


I would be fine with making a call for a background check as long as it was not mandatory,and there was no recording of info.Basically is Joe Public D.L.# 123456 OK to purchase a firearm?Yes or No?

Other than that,I am no compromise/pro gun all the way.Actually,it's pro freedom.

Looking back at NY,it is one sorry state.You are not trusted enough to maintain your vehicle,so you need a forced state inspection yearly.Taxes/fees/regulations are out of control.

Best of luck to you there.(I think you will need it)
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:18   #57
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 7,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
As I said earlier I am not in a state where the supposed " gunshow loophole" exists. However, I believe it is a total of 17 states that have this. The other 33 states from what I understand require an FFL to officiate a sale at a gunshow.

That is my understanding. That is all.

I am forced to stay in New York because of family and the type of work I do. Nowhere else on earth could I do what I do and make what I make. That is my cross to bear. I accept that. For the length of time I have been here it as been this way and will not change.

The thing is,there is no "loophole"-it is an imaginary thing to sway the public.

After closing the gun show "loophole",there will be the classified ad/gunlistings/garage sale/flea market/etc "loophole".

These people are anti freedom,and will absolutely not stop ever.


Reminds me of IIRC,feinswine bitching about the "loophole" in the 94 ban-the scumbags wrote the law defining an "assault weapon" by certain evil features,and when guns were produced in accordance with the law (leaving off certain features-bayonet lugs/flash suppressors/etc) they whine about a "loophole".


On the plus side,the terrorists no longer have a reason to hate us.
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:31   #58
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
I agree completely with the notion that politicians will always wine about a loophole that was missed. Feinstein is a problem, she hates guns. But she is the kind of person that relies on people with guns to protect her. As the son of a police officer I have known many people in uniform that carry guns. Honestly, some of them made me uncomfortable knowing THEY had guns. A few did get on the wrong side of things at some point. But Feinstein is happy to have their service and allow them to have guns.

Please don't misunderstand me at all, I'm just pointing out a funny duality.

I'm not putting down police officers or anyone else. I'm not saying cops shouldn't have guns. Just a funny observation.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:35   #59
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 7,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
I agree completely with the notion that politicians will always wine about a loophole that was missed. Feinstein is a problem, she hates guns. But she is the kind of person that relies on people with guns to protect her. As the son of a police officer I have known many people in uniform that carry guns. Honestly, some of them made me uncomfortable knowing THEY had guns. A few did get on the wrong side of things at some point. But Feinstein is happy to have their service and allow them to have guns.

Please don't misunderstand me at all, I'm just pointing out a funny duality.


You just seem to really believe in the "loophole"-that's what I don't get.




POS Bloomberg banned Big Gulp soft drinks over a certain size-is it a "loophole" that I buy 2 20 oz drinks instead of one 44oz?
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05

Last edited by carguym14; January 11, 2013 at 22:40.
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:45   #60
JasonB
Banned
 
FALaholic #: 7430
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 90 N 0 W
Posts: 11,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
I agree completely with the notion that politicians will always wine about a loophole that was missed. Feinstein is a problem, she hates guns. But she is the kind of person that relies on people with guns to protect her. As the son of a police officer I have known many people in uniform that carry guns. Honestly, some of them made me uncomfortable knowing THEY had guns. A few did get on the wrong side of things at some point. But Feinstein is happy to have their service and allow them to have guns.

Please don't misunderstand me at all, I'm just pointing out a funny duality.

I'm not putting down police officers or anyone else. I'm not saying cops shouldn't have guns. Just a funny observation.
She has people with guns to protect her, but she also has her own:


http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/difiElitist.htm

No need to apologize, just go up a level in the forums and see that your feeling has a basis in fact. Oh, and a good number of them indicate they are in favor of you being prevented from possessing arms at least in some way.
JasonB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:50   #61
JasonB
Banned
 
FALaholic #: 7430
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: 90 N 0 W
Posts: 11,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
, if those that would want to kill your entire 2nd Amendment right would shut up for a while (long enough for you to prepare) wouldn't you settle for having to make a call to see if the guy you are selling a gun to is not a f'ing psycho or criminal?
Now you can't say they would be willing to stop there.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,6495061.story

"Closing the gun show loophole is only a start. It's also necessary to make the background checks meaningful and accurate, and in this, the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System supervised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has often been found wanting. The databases will need to be made more thorough, accurate and up to date, a step that will likely require not only greater investment by Uncle Sam but grappling with some difficult privacy and state's rights issues, particularly in identifying chronic drug abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. Currently, at least 19 states don't even attempt to report such people to the system.

Such hurdles may be challenging but they are certainly not insurmountable. And whatever improvements are made, it has to be better than what exists today. Even so, studies have suggested that background checks, as flawed as they may be, already reduce the criminal trade in guns.

Liberals may not get all that excited by the prospect of improved background checks, but such reforms are likely to have a greater impact on the nation's gun violence than a ban on assault weapons, which are not what run-of-the-mill murderers tend to use. That's not to suggest that limiting access to certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines isn't important, too, but a universal background check is just too sensible for Washington to refuse any longer."
JasonB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 22:57   #62
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguym14 View Post
You just seem to really believe in the "loophole"-that's what I don't get.
I only use it because it is being used as a thing by others. I do not believe in it being a loophole, I believe it is there because that's what the local law is. I call it the "gunshow loophole" because its easier than saying "not having to have a background check or use an FFL at a gunshow during face to face gun sales." I also use it because it has unfortunately become part of the lexicon and everyone knows what I'm referring to. Maybe not what it is legally, but at least an idea of what it could be.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 23:03   #63
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonB View Post
Now you can't say they would be willing to stop there.
Well now I can't trust anyone.

I guess it is a slippery slope.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 23:39   #64
EPC WN
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65612
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: District 12
Posts: 4,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmetzger View Post
I only use it because it is being used as a thing by others. I do not believe in it being a loophole, I believe it is there because that's what the local law is. I call it the "gunshow loophole" because its easier than saying "not having to have a background check or use an FFL at a gunshow during face to face gun sales." I also use it because it has unfortunately become part of the lexicon and everyone knows what I'm referring to. Maybe not what it is legally, but at least an idea of what it could be.
You lose the war of words when you take on their PolSpeak. Just say private transfer or sale.
__________________
┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
EPC WN is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 12, 2013, 08:25   #65
drmetzger
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 64839
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 494
Next time I will, it will save me a few hours.
drmetzger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2013, 12:13   #66
alant
Curio & Relic
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 46689
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffrey View Post
Alant, just curious. In this sentence ~"They will have the backing of a majority of US citizens in this." ~ do you fall in that majority?

This is a sincere question.
My comments were intended as political analysis.

Personally I'm conflicted on magazine limits. No one NEEDS more than a 10 round magazine for home defense, but I like having 20 and 30 round mags. As a matter of practicality 10 rounds mags for some pistols (my CZ 82 for example) are going to be hard to come up with. Overall, I'm not strongly opposed to limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Universal background checks, not so much of a conflict with that. States need money to implement any federal mandate and perhaps a (nominal) fee for service is the way to fund an instant (and I mean instant) check system.

Assault weapon ban - it's all about the definition. Bayonet lugs, meh. Flash suppresor, meh. Pistol grip, meh. Looks like a military weapon, meh. It's really the magazine capacity and ease of changing them. Try changing the standard mag on a regular SKS quickly - yet it is considered an assault weapon. Parts of these definitions have been written to favor domestic manufacturers by cutting out competition from foreign military surplus weapons.
__________________
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts.
And if He can't turn their hearts
May He turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limp.
- Old Gaelic Blessing
alant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2013, 12:21   #67
alant
Curio & Relic
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 46689
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by RG Coburn View Post
I noticed Alant put "reasonable" in quotation marks. Smart move..would want people to think you'd possibly hold that position.
"Reasonable"....right in there with "fair share"....
Again, that was political analysis. I put "reasonable" in quotes because it sounds "reasonable to them" not necessarily reasonable enough to pass Congress.

What is "reasonable" enough to pass Congress? That's hard to say, but magazine capacity limits and universal background checks seem likely.
__________________
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don't love us, May God turn their hearts.
And if He can't turn their hearts
May He turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limp.
- Old Gaelic Blessing
alant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2013, 12:45   #68
TheDanimal
Senior Member
Contributor
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 25945
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL View Post
I actually don't have a problem with background checks for guns, although I don't think anyone but violent felons and the truly insane should be prohibited from gun ownership.
I'm actually very surprised and disappointed to see you write this, though I know you are well intentioned.

Gun control gets pretty easy to do when there are enough laws to make people criminals. We're getting to that point. Then it's pretty convenient to not allow good people to have them.

Besides, after someone does their jail time, shouldn't they have the right to protect themselves?
When someone gets out of prison in this country, they have little reason to "buy in" to a straight life. For example, I would argue that 99.9% of sexual predators are not curable. If they are so dangerous (which they are), then why don't we keep them in jail? But nope, we let them go and immediately create second class citizens that are tracked, can't find a job, etc. That's just one example.
Our society is unintentionally creating a class of citizens, just one step away from being recruited as domestic terrorists, because they don't have anything left to lose, and will never have any opportunity to buy back in . Really think about that for a minute.

And are you really comfortable with allowing the same people who want to take YOUR guns away, decide that certain groups of people shouldn't be able to have them? What happens is that group soon becomes larger, and you end up being included in it.

You're okay with background checks. So you're not going to be angry when you want to make a purchase and whether intentional or not, you can't purchase that day because of some technical errors, etc.?

As a doc, you should also know that it would be pretty easy for someone's medical records to be used to deny them gun ownership for MANY reasons.
TheDanimal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2013, 13:38   #69
riffraff2
Curio & Relic
Platinum Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 54720
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by alant View Post
My comments were intended as political analysis.

Personally I'm conflicted on magazine limits. No one NEEDS more than a 10 round magazine for home defense, but I like having 20 and 30 round mags. As a matter of practicality 10 rounds mags for some pistols (my CZ 82 for example) are going to be hard to come up with. Overall, I'm not strongly opposed to limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Universal background checks, not so much of a conflict with that. States need money to implement any federal mandate and perhaps a (nominal) fee for service is the way to fund an instant (and I mean instant) check system.

Assault weapon ban - it's all about the definition. Bayonet lugs, meh. Flash suppresor, meh. Pistol grip, meh. Looks like a military weapon, meh. It's really the magazine capacity and ease of changing them. Try changing the standard mag on a regular SKS quickly - yet it is considered an assault weapon. Parts of these definitions have been written to favor domestic manufacturers by cutting out competition from foreign military surplus weapons.

No one "NEEDS". That says it all. Alant is brain damaged. Alant is as bad or worse than DABTL.
riffraff2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2013, 14:10   #70
carguym14
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13162
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 7,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffraff2 View Post
No one "NEEDS". That says it all. Alant is brain damaged. Alant is as bad or worse than DABTL.

+1 That whole "NEEDS" crap is bullshit.

Letting anyone decide who "NEEDS" what is a slippery slope.
__________________
Anything not under government control is,by definition,out of control.


Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.


When is it time to pick up your rifle?
When your conscience cannot abide to see it unused.
1gewehr 8/3/05
carguym14 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2013, 12:30   #71
ronpaulFAL
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65535
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: somewhere
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by alant View Post
My comments were intended as political analysis.

Personally I'm conflicted on magazine limits. No one NEEDS more than a 10 round magazine for home defense, but I like having 20 and 30 round mags. As a matter of practicality 10 rounds mags for some pistols (my CZ 82 for example) are going to be hard to come up with. Overall, I'm not strongly opposed to limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Universal background checks, not so much of a conflict with that. States need money to implement any federal mandate and perhaps a (nominal) fee for service is the way to fund an instant (and I mean instant) check system.

Assault weapon ban - it's all about the definition. Bayonet lugs, meh. Flash suppresor, meh. Pistol grip, meh. Looks like a military weapon, meh. It's really the magazine capacity and ease of changing them. Try changing the standard mag on a regular SKS quickly - yet it is considered an assault weapon. Parts of these definitions have been written to favor domestic manufacturers by cutting out competition from foreign military surplus weapons.
I'll agree that eliminating weapons based on certain features is stupid. It doesn't affect their lethality. I'll also agree that many of these provisions- and particularly bans on importation- are designed to engender support from domestic manufacturers. They are a bribe of sorts.

I disagree about the mag ban. OK, maybe a 100 round drum isn't entirely necessary for home defense, but certainly >10 round mags are. There are plenty of cops who have, while under fire, emptied entire 17 round mags and hit nothing. There are also plenty of cops who have engaged multiple assailants, or drugged up assailants who take more rounds to take down. In these situations, a standard capacity magazine makes plenty of sense. My best friend's house was broken into by two men. He would not have been able to take them down very easily with a 7 round 1911.

More importantly, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES confirmed that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not limited to home defense against criminals, hunting or sporting. They are secondary benefits. The purpose, as supported by many historical documents written by those who ratified the Constitution, is to prevent tyranny by armed government groups (foreign or domestic). Supporting documentation clearly states that the People should have arms and training on par with the military. They were not referring to particularly "dangerous or unusual" weapons such as nuclear weapons or axes used to behead. The latter was not permitted due to a law against "affrightening" which was the purposeful display of arms for the purpose of intimidation. The intent, in short, was the permit the People to resist ground forces. A ban on even 100 round drums does not fit with this goal. In fact, the People have already been disarmed to the point that they only retain an advantage through sheer numbers. As we have seen throughout history, a smaller force with vastly superior arms can nonetheless intimidate a larger force, even if that force could easily win. They are usually unwilling to accept high losses.

I'll also note that those you apparently align yourself with are proposing a limit of 7 rounds. You can defend yourself against a single intruder armed with a bat if you have a 1911. What if there are 2 intruders and they have revolvers? Not at all impossible. In fact, they are likely to have retained more advanced weaponry since they don't follow the law.

If you wish to ignore the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, fine- repeal it. I will follow the will of the country if that law gets repealed. Until then, stating that the 2nd Amendment is for the purpose of hunting or mere self-defense from criminals ONLY ignores the facts. If you feel that these reasons are no longer relevant, I remind you of various genocides which have occurred even within our lifetimes. If you still choose to ignore history, repeal the 2nd Amendment, but don't ignore the proof of its purpose as acknowledged by the Supreme Court. I encourage you to read the Heller Amendment in full, as I have.

Last edited by ronpaulFAL; January 15, 2013 at 12:47. Reason: added last paragraph
ronpaulFAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2013, 12:41   #72
ronpaulFAL
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65535
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: somewhere
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanimal View Post
I'm actually very surprised and disappointed to see you write this, though I know you are well intentioned.

Gun control gets pretty easy to do when there are enough laws to make people criminals. We're getting to that point. Then it's pretty convenient to not allow good people to have them.

Besides, after someone does their jail time, shouldn't they have the right to protect themselves?
When someone gets out of prison in this country, they have little reason to "buy in" to a straight life. For example, I would argue that 99.9% of sexual predators are not curable. If they are so dangerous (which they are), then why don't we keep them in jail? But nope, we let them go and immediately create second class citizens that are tracked, can't find a job, etc. That's just one example.
Our society is unintentionally creating a class of citizens, just one step away from being recruited as domestic terrorists, because they don't have anything left to lose, and will never have any opportunity to buy back in . Really think about that for a minute.

And are you really comfortable with allowing the same people who want to take YOUR guns away, decide that certain groups of people shouldn't be able to have them? What happens is that group soon becomes larger, and you end up being included in it.

You're okay with background checks. So you're not going to be angry when you want to make a purchase and whether intentional or not, you can't purchase that day because of some technical errors, etc.?

As a doc, you should also know that it would be pretty easy for someone's medical records to be used to deny them gun ownership for MANY reasons.
Appreciate the polite disagreement. I don't mean to disenfranchise anyone. However, once someone breaks the rule of "live and let live" then we have a problem. The same principle for firearms generally applies to other stuff; I don't care if two dudes wants to get married and hang out in kimonos and talk fashion, nor do I care if they want to spend every cent that they have. I draw the line when they demand to use my church, demand that I pay for their lifestyle, or otherwise affect anyone else's life but their own in a negative way. I oppose any and all abortion simply because it disenfranchises a vulnerable, defenseless and mute person from his or her right to life itself.

I acknowledge the "mission creep" that can happen. That is why I was very specific. When I state "truly insane" I mean those who are psychotic (see or hear things that aren't there; bad prognosis with many relapses even under optimal treatment with verified dosage). I don't mean the clinically depressed or anyone else. Having treated some of these people in medical school and residency, I can tell you that they don't have business having a gun if they are hearing voices telling them to kill people. That is where I draw the line- I will encourage liberty of all kinds up the the point at which one person's liberty limits that of another. When a crazy person is allowed the freedom to bear arms, despite hallucinations or homicidal thoughts, and then goes out and kills some people, they are reducing others' liberty.

Similarly, I specifically mention violent felons. Granted, there may be some "violent" felonies which could be excluded so perhaps that definition could be tightened up a bit. What I mean, though, is that rapists and murderers should have a period after prison in which they cannot be legally armed. Such is life, but if they behave for a short period of 5 years then they can get that back. Again, the point is to prevent those who have already shown they are willing to practically or literally ruin another persons' life from doing so again. Our prisons are notorious "schools for criminals" and I want to see that they reject that lifestyle. You can say that everyone has the right of self-defense and I agree- but they lost that when they killed or raped someone else. They don't have it in prison and they shouldn't have it until they can be reasonably trusted.
ronpaulFAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2013, 12:44   #73
ronpaulFAL
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65535
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: somewhere
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonB View Post
Now you can't say they would be willing to stop there.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...,6495061.story

"Closing the gun show loophole is only a start. It's also necessary to make the background checks meaningful and accurate, and in this, the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System supervised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation has often been found wanting. The databases will need to be made more thorough, accurate and up to date, a step that will likely require not only greater investment by Uncle Sam but grappling with some difficult privacy and state's rights issues, particularly in identifying chronic drug abusers and the dangerously mentally ill. Currently, at least 19 states don't even attempt to report such people to the system.

Such hurdles may be challenging but they are certainly not insurmountable. And whatever improvements are made, it has to be better than what exists today. Even so, studies have suggested that background checks, as flawed as they may be, already reduce the criminal trade in guns.

Liberals may not get all that excited by the prospect of improved background checks, but such reforms are likely to have a greater impact on the nation's gun violence than a ban on assault weapons, which are not what run-of-the-mill murderers tend to use. That's not to suggest that limiting access to certain types of weapons and high-capacity magazines isn't important, too, but a universal background check is just too sensible for Washington to refuse any longer."
I think that the law should be applied equally. Background checks are OK if we only restrict for specific circumstances as I have explained above. There should not be a loophole for those people to get guns. Every time I buy a gun I wonder, 'will there be a NICS mistake?' and if that happened I would be annoyed but would have to iron it out. Clerical errors are something we have to deal with. Such is life.
ronpaulFAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2013, 12:45   #74
bubbagump
Registered
 
bubbagump's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 21705
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 2,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL View Post
I'll agree that eliminating weapons based on certain features is stupid. It doesn't affect their lethality. I'll also agree that many of these provisions- and particularly bans on importation- are designed to engender support from domestic manufacturers. They are a bribe of sorts.

I disagree about the mag ban. OK, maybe a 100 round drum isn't entirely necessary for home defense, but certainly >10 round mags are. There are plenty of cops who have, while under fire, emptied entire 17 round mags and hit nothing. There are also plenty of cops who have engaged multiple assailants, or drugged up assailants who take more rounds to take down. In these situations, a standard capacity magazine makes plenty of sense. My best friend's house was broken into by two men. He would not have been able to take them down very easily with a 7 round 1911.

More importantly, the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES confirmed that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not limited to home defense against criminals, hunting or sporting. They are secondary benefits. The purpose, as supported by many historical documents written by those who ratified the Constitution, is to prevent tyranny by armed government groups (foreign or domestic). Supporting documentation clearly states that the People should have arms and training on par with the military. They were not referring to particularly "dangerous or unusual" weapons such as nuclear weapons or axes used to behead. The latter was not permitted due to a law against "affrightening" which was the purposeful display of arms for the purpose of intimidation. The intent, in short, was the permit the People to resist ground forces. A ban on even 100 round drums does not fit with this goal. In fact, the People have already been disarmed to the point that they only retain an advantage through sheer numbers. As we have seen throughout history, a smaller force with vastly superior arms can nonetheless intimidate a larger force, even if that force could easily win. They are usually unwilling to accept high losses.

I'll also note that those you apparently align yourself with are proposing a limit of 7 rounds. You can defend yourself against a single intruder armed with a bat if you have a 1911. What if there are 2 intruders and they have revolvers? Not at all impossible. In fact, they are likely to have retained more advanced weaponry since they don't follow the law.
The large mag thing is both a straw man argument and diversionary. Straw man because anyone with any experience knows that 100 round magazines are not important or even optimal for any sort of field or home use. If they were I'd have a footlocker full of 'em. But it is generally accepted that 30 round magazines are effective and perhaps even optimal, as evidenced by the fact that our law enforcement buddies are flush with 'em. This alone attests to the fact that they are effective. Diversionary because it preempts the real issue, which is they don't get infringe on our right to personal arms regardless of capacity.

So anyone who gets behind a mag ban is actively advancing the other side's agenda, either knowingly our out of ignorance. Since I'm a kind man I'll say the former. In general, reasoned argument is wasted on these folks but by all means, go ahead and try ..
__________________
Strangely enough, my take on things is increasingly all that matters to me. - EL

Last edited by bubbagump; January 15, 2013 at 14:41.
bubbagump is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2013, 14:36   #75
TheOtherTinMan
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 28548
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL View Post
Every time I buy a gun I wonder, 'will there be a NICS mistake?' and if that happened I would be annoyed but would have to iron it out. Clerical errors are something we have to deal with. Such is life.
So, our God given, INALIENABLE rights ought to be subject to 'clerical errors' on the part of people who are doing everything they can to destroy those rights?

Gotcha.
TheOtherTinMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting 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 On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2012 The FAL Files