In response to his views on "Well regulated" (which seems to be his entire point here)
[QUOTE]The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. [B]Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[/B][/QUOTE]
[URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20180201191936/http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm[/URL]
Dude is just misled / purposely forgetting that meanings of English words change over time.
Or I could go with the Penn and Teller view: "The people just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state militia! They knew the time might come where they'd need to do that again."
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8[/media]
And if you really wanted to get specific, all able bodied males(and females now), from the ages of 17 ~ 45, are considered to be unorganized militia. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903"]This was affirmed in 1903 under the Militia Act[/URL], which has stayed true even with the new milita acts.
So in short: Warren Burger, hippity hoppity, get the fuck off my property.
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/gOjTA7v.gif[/IMG]
The people are the militia, not any level of government be it state or otherwise.
Well, this is more of a response to the video. You cannot regulate guns the same way you regulate cars because of a few things, cars are not in the constitution, driving is considered a privilege, not a right, thus the state can revoke your driving privileges.
How about instead of attacking the 2nd amendment and calling it a "fraud" we propose something meaningful.
Improve background check systems - make it so states have to communicate important information such as criminal status, mental health wellness/flags, medical wellness/flags, etc. Funding something standardized will make it so info is passed along and people applying for background checks are being checked with most up-to-date info. A person who cannot access firearms attempts to purchase one they are flagged and the local jurdisticion investigates why the person attempted to purchase a gun. Need a system that works better, any anyone who fails to comply with sending information that is related to the system can be charged with criminal charges and held liable in civil matters. Also make a system in which people may not be barred from purchase for life. For example, people can face mental crisises and later on be fit to have a weapon (doctor release needed, etc). Make it so non-violent convicts can purchase weapons after they complete their sentence and parole requirements.
Make gun safes mandatory by law. Guns and ammo have to be sperate unless it is a weapon you use for defense.
Mandatory firearm safety courses which do not infringe on peoples rights to arms. Make it so that anyone who has not taken a safety course has to wait for a certain period of time before they can receive their firearm. Doing this will make the class convenient and if the class is passed they get instant access to their gun purchases assuming that is the state law with no waiting period. Or you make it more appealing by saying people who take the safety course can get state funded discounts on safes and such. Maybe a tax credit?
Make CHL licenses harder to get, longer courses with more rigorous training and exams. Doctors waivers for physicals and psychological exams are needed. Make it so that licenses have to be renewed regularly maybe bi-yearly. Seeing as CHL/CC is a privilege and failure to comply will result in long suspension and criminal/civil charges/fines. There is a big difference in keeping something at home for hunting/defense and carrying everyday in the public.
It would also help funding education and healthcare better as well. I feel like there is plenty of sensible gun regulation that can be obtained but everyone is quick to jump to the most extreme ideas (on both sides too).
I posted this less to argue the minutiae of solutions that might solve gun violence as problem and more because I'm just fascinated by how much the overton window has shifted. Warren Burger was a conservative, not a liberal.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53140225]I posted this less to argue the minutiae of solutions that might solve gun violence as problem and more because I'm just fascinated by how much the overton window has shifted. Warren Burger was a conservative, not a liberal.[/QUOTE]
Burger may have been "[I]a conservative,[/I]" but he also delivered a lot of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade"]liberal[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon"]decisions.[/URL]
Arguably he represents a grey flavor of so-called American Conservative that tastes more like British Conservative that only recently stopped seeping around the edges of the Republican party.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53140238]Burger may have been "[I]a conservative,[/I]" but he also delivered a lot of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade"]liberal[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon"]decisions.[/URL]
Arguably he represents a grey flavor of so-called American Conservative that tastes more like British Conservative that only recently stopped seeping around the edges of the Republican party.[/QUOTE]
He's a conservative before they only way you could be conservative is going right off the deep end.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53140238]Burger may have been "[I]a conservative,[/I]" but he also delivered a lot of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade"]liberal[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon"]decisions.[/URL]
Arguably he represents a grey flavor of so-called American Conservative that tastes more like British Conservative that only recently stopped seeping around the edges of the Republican party.[/QUOTE]
Think my history book said Burger was just slightly more conservative than the famously liberal Earl Warren, is that false?
[QUOTE=MR-X;53140207]Well, this is more of a response to the video. You cannot regulate guns the same way you regulate cars because of a few things, cars are not in the constitution, driving is considered a privilege, not a right, thus the state can revoke your driving privileges.
How about instead of attacking the 2nd amendment and calling it a "fraud" we propose something meaningful.
Improve background check systems - make it so states have to communicate important information such as criminal status, mental health wellness/flags, medical wellness/flags, etc. Funding something standardized will make it so info is passed along and people applying for background checks are being checked with most up-to-date info. A person who cannot access firearms attempts to purchase one they are flagged and the local jurdisticion investigates why the person attempted to purchase a gun. Need a system that works better, any anyone who fails to comply with sending information that is related to the system can be charged with criminal charges and held liable in civil matters. Also make a system in which people may not be barred from purchase for life. For example, people can face mental crisises and later on be fit to have a weapon (doctor release needed, etc). Make it so non-violent convicts can purchase weapons after they complete their sentence and parole requirements.
Make gun safes mandatory by law. Guns and ammo have to be sperate unless it is a weapon you use for defense.
Mandatory firearm safety courses which do not infringe on peoples rights to arms. Make it so that anyone who has not taken a safety course has to wait for a certain period of time before they can receive their firearm. Doing this will make the class convenient and if the class is passed they get instant access to their gun purchases assuming that is the state law with no waiting period. Or you make it more appealing by saying people who take the safety course can get state funded discounts on safes and such. Maybe a tax credit?
Make CHL licenses harder to get, longer courses with more rigorous training and exams. Doctors waivers for physicals and psychological exams are needed. Make it so that licenses have to be renewed regularly maybe bi-yearly. Seeing as CHL/CC is a privilege and failure to comply will result in long suspension and criminal/civil charges/fines. There is a big difference in keeping something at home for hunting/defense and carrying everyday in the public.
It would also help funding education and healthcare better as well. I feel like there is plenty of sensible gun regulation that can be obtained but everyone is quick to jump to the most extreme ideas (on both sides too).[/QUOTE]
there's nothing wrong with the current background check system other than the people reporting to it. maybe make an easier avenue for reporting disqualifiers, or make it automatic. I have no other qualms with the background check system
a gun safe that'll actually keep anyone out is like 3 grand this would just be an i hate the poor law. even if a cheap piece of shit gun safe is fine nobody is gonna want to lock up their $250 hunting rifle in a $1200 safe and requiring such a high monetary barrier for entry is without a doubt infringing on the rights of poor gun owners
I think we should go back to having marksmanship classes in school. I'd much rather our kids learn to handle a firearm through a certified instructor than video games and movies. dedicate the first part of the school year to showing them pictures and videos of people accidentally shooting themselves and then start talking to them about handling, maintenance, and the 4 rules, and only after that should they get any practical training, probably with co2 pellet rifles just to keep costs down
concealed carry permit holders are about the best behaved people in the world so this is just counterproductive imo. there are already regular renewals (every 4 years for the enhanced permit here, same as for a drivers license). for the record, concealed carry is a right in many states, not a privilege.
restricting concealed carry any further is pointless. when was the last time a ccw permit holder made it to the news for doing something potentially questionable? zimmerman?
funding education and healthcare is usually not a bad idea either way so no arguments there
[QUOTE=Boaraes;53140155][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/gOjTA7v.gif[/IMG]
The people are the militia, not any level of government be it state or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
where did you get this image? this isn't a knock against the argument, but it looks like one of those chain-mail email things my grandpa might send me
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53140238]Burger may have been "[I]a conservative,[/I]" but he also delivered a lot of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade"]liberal[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon"]decisions.[/URL]
Arguably he represents a grey flavor of so-called American Conservative that tastes more like British Conservative that only recently stopped seeping around the edges of the Republican party.[/QUOTE]
No, he's a conservative until everyone decided it wasn't conservative enough.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;53140238]Burger may have been "[I]a conservative,[/I]" but he also delivered a lot of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade"]liberal[/URL] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon"]decisions.[/URL]
Arguably he represents a grey flavor of so-called American Conservative that tastes more like British Conservative that only recently stopped seeping around the edges of the Republican party.[/QUOTE]
I can't really speak to where he falls on the liberal/conservative scale, but if you read Burger's concurrence in Roe v. Wade, it is not very liberal at all. Super short and sweet.
And v Nixon was an 8-0 decision.
[QUOTE=butre;53140423]there's nothing wrong with the current background check system other than the people reporting to it. maybe make an easier avenue for reporting disqualifiers, or make it automatic. I have no other qualms with the background check system
a gun safe that'll actually keep anyone out is like 3 grand this would just be an i hate the poor law. even if a cheap piece of shit gun safe is fine nobody is gonna want to lock up their $250 hunting rifle in a $1200 safe and requiring such a high monetary barrier for entry is without a doubt infringing on the rights of poor gun owners
I think we should go back to having marksmanship classes in school. I'd much rather our kids learn to handle a firearm through a certified instructor than video games and movies. dedicate the first part of the school year to showing them pictures and videos of people accidentally shooting themselves and then start talking to them about handling, maintenance, and the 4 rules, and only after that should they get any practical training, probably with co2 pellet rifles just to keep costs down
concealed carry permit holders are about the best behaved people in the world so this is just counterproductive imo. there are already regular renewals (every 4 years for the enhanced permit here, same as for a drivers license). for the record, concealed carry is a right in many states, not a privilege.
restricting concealed carry any further is pointless. when was the last time a ccw permit holder made it to the news for doing something potentially questionable? zimmerman?
funding education and healthcare is usually not a bad idea either way so no arguments there[/QUOTE]
When there is an average of 200k guns stolen each year, securing guns is a small part of the equation. A lot of firearms are stolen from cars (Which they sell safes for as well.) That amount of weapons could arm my entire town and then some extra.
Based on stats the average gun owning house hold has 8 firearms on average. Lets say the average price for a handgun is 500 dollars that is close to 4k in weapons. If you cannot afford something as simple as a gun-safe when they range in price from 50 dollars to a few thousand we have a problem. In the case of your arguement you can easily get a gun-locker which can be mounted or bolted down. It should be more then enough to prevent someone from walking away with guns in the event of a smash and grab.
The gunshow loophole needs to be closed too. It is pretty scary that when I go to a gunshow and see normal arms sellers doing sales without checking ID or backgrounds because it is simply a gunshow. I witnessed a gun seller do an out of state sell with someone because he did it "privately." Practically anyone can get a gun, hell I got my first AR-15 at a gunshow and they did not run a background check on me. That is pretty concerning. I did not know better at the time, but still..
There are things we can do to reduce gun related crime.
[QUOTE=MR-X;53140496]When there is an average of 200k guns stolen each year, securing guns is a small part of the equation. A lot of firearms are stolen from cars (Which they sell safes for as well.) That amount of weapons could arm my entire town and then some extra.
Based on stats the average gun owning house hold has 8 firearms on average. Lets say the average price for a handgun is 500 dollars that is close to 4k in weapons. If you cannot afford something as simple as a gun-safe when they range in price from 50 dollars to a few thousand we have a problem. In the case of your arguement you can easily get a gun-locker which can be mounted or bolted down. It should be more then enough to prevent someone from walking away with guns in the event of a smash and grab.
The gunshow loophole needs to be closed too. It is pretty scary that when I go to a gunshow and see normal arms sellers doing sales without checking ID or backgrounds because it is simply a gunshow. I witnessed a gun seller do an out of state sell with someone because he did it "privately." Practically anyone can get a gun, hell I got my first AR-15 at a gunshow and they did not run a background check on me. That is pretty concerning. I did not know better at the time, but still..
There are things we can do to reduce gun related crime.[/QUOTE]
there is no gun show loophole, any normal arms seller has to report every gun they buy and every gun they sell and the minute there's a discrepancy between the books and the inventory they spend the next decade in jail.
when you bought the gun, did you fill out a 4473? if so, they did a background check. a lot of people don't seem to know what the I in NICS stands for. if you didn't fill out a 4473 then it was a private sale, and not only is that not a loophole, but it's an intentional feature. even if it were a loophole, it'd be just as aptly called the "wal mart parking lot loophole" or the "my cousin's driveway loophole"
[QUOTE=butre;53140514]there is no gun show loophole, any normal arms seller has to report every gun they buy and every gun they sell and the minute there's a discrepancy between the books and the inventory they spend the next decade in jail.
when you bought the gun, did you fill out a 4473? if so, they did a background check. a lot of people don't seem to know what the I in NICS stands for. if you didn't fill out a 4473 then it was a private sale, and not only is that not a loophole, but it's an intentional feature. even if it were a loophole, it'd be just as aptly called the "wal mart parking lot loophole" or the "my cousin's driveway loophole"[/QUOTE]
When you are an arms seller and at your shop you normally use the 4473, you wouldn't sell a particular weapon to someone who lives out of state and when then you go to a gun show and do private sales with people who are from out of state and then don't use a 4473. Yeah, it is a private seller, spin it whatever way you want, it is pretty shady and can be apart of the problems at hand.
That isn't the case of uncle jimmy selling his 1911 to his nephew tommy. It is a blatant way to get around a system which would prohibit a sell normally. The fact is i think everyone can benefit from some type of system that allows background checks on all sales private or commercial.
As a gun owner I find it terrible that we have people who go to the extreme in attempts to take away firearms or prevent ownership. But at the same time we are unable to move towards anything that could remotely start something sensible or realistic. Lets just sit on our hands.
We get mad when they attempt to take weapons away, get mad when they ban accessories, get mad when they cap magazines, get mad when they try and restrict stuff, and they wonder why we don't want to listen to them. Then on the flip side there are plenty of reasonable things that we can do such as manditory safe laws, tightening up on background checks, training, etc, and people cannot even get on board with that. Then we wonder why they don't listen to us. What Is funny to me is these are things we can try and see if they have some type of impact. We also get mad at gun laws that are the same rehashed law from the early Finstein days and we say we need to try something different and then we don't do anything.
I don't really understand what you're saying.
It is a felony for a licensed FFL to go to a gun show and sell his stock without performing background checks. It is a felony for a private seller to go to a gun show and sell guns for profit as a business without an FFL.
There is no loophole there. It is already a felony. You will go to jail for a long time and never see a firearm again for doing it.
Again, there is no loophole. What exactly are you trying to make illegal that isn't already illegal?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53140591]I don't really understand what you're saying.
It is a felony for a licensed FFL to go to a gun show and sell his stock without performing background checks. It is a felony for a private seller to go to a gun show and sell guns for profit as a business without an FFL.
There is no loophole there. It is already a felony. You will go to jail for a long time and never see a firearm again for doing it.
Again, there is no loophole. What exactly are you trying to make illegal that isn't already illegal?[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, private party sellers are not required to obtain background checks. Simply put, it isn't illegal for you to attend a gun show and sell your personal gun property even if you don't have an FFL
I don't think this type of gun control would solve very much, but the fierce resistance it received is a pretty good barometer of why real gun control legislation is gonna be a huge headache to ever do
[QUOTE=Boaraes;53140155][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/gOjTA7v.gif[/IMG]
The people are the militia, not any level of government be it state or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
this image is an absolute clusterfuck
"god given rights"
I'm sick of hearing this, as if god himself said in the bible "thou must hath guns!"
"Supreme law, not repealable"
Founding fathers themselves wanted the government to be malleable to the times, not be worshiped like an absolute truth like, yes, the bible that we put everywhere as anti-communist propaganda
they also didn't want people to selectively skirt around wording
[QUOTE=J!NX;53141250]this image is an absolute clusterfuck
"god given rights"
I'm sick of hearing this, as if god himself said in the bible "thou must hath guns!"
"Supreme law, not repealable"
Founding fathers themselves wanted the government to be malleable to the times, not be worshiped like an absolute truth like, yes, the bible that we put everywhere as anti-communist propaganda
they also didn't want people to selectively skirt around wording[/QUOTE]
As Ben Franklin once said
"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes!"
I guess the GOP is trying to do away with taxes entirely and can only guarantee death.
[QUOTE=Flameon;53141241]As I understand it, private party sellers are not required to obtain background checks. Simply put, it isn't illegal for you to attend a gun show and sell your personal gun property even if you don't have an FFL
I don't think this type of gun control would solve very much, but the fierce resistance it received is a pretty good barometer of why real gun control legislation is gonna be a huge headache to ever do[/QUOTE]
It's not illegal to sell your guns privately at a gun show but it is illegal to make a business off doing it. If you're regularly selling them for a profit, you're committing a felony. Gun show booths are expensive, private sellers don't buy them unless they're trying to make a profit, which is already a felony.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53141285]It's not illegal to sell your guns privately at a gun show but it is illegal to make a business off doing it. If you're regularly selling them for a profit, you're committing a felony. Gun show booths are expensive, private sellers don't buy them unless they're trying to make a profit, which is already a felony.[/QUOTE]
I didn't interpret the issue as private sellers making a business selling lots of guns, but that the cumulative impact of the thousands upon thousands of private sellers at gun shows across the nation means there is a huge number of private sales that end up happening, legally, without a background check.[URL="http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-background-checks-results-national-survey"] Here's an article about it
[/URL]
As for the table prices, wouldn't you get your money back, and then some, but just selling one or two of your guns?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53141285]It's not illegal to sell your guns privately at a gun show but it is illegal to make a business off doing it. If you're regularly selling them for a profit, you're committing a felony. Gun show booths are expensive, private sellers don't buy them unless they're trying to make a profit, which is already a felony.[/QUOTE]
Guess I ultimately misunderstood the issue. I know people come in to shows with guns and intend to look for a buyer, maybe that is what I saw instead of an acctual FFL and i confused the people as a FFL When they're just regular joes. My mistake and misunderstanding.
Guess my whole point is there should be some type of access to background checks for private sales. I think it would be benefitical.
[QUOTE=Flameon;53141368]I didn't interpret the issue as private sellers making a business selling lots of guns, but that the cumulative impact of the thousands upon thousands of private sellers at gun shows across the nation means there is a huge number of private sales that end up happening, legally, without a background check.[URL="http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2595892/firearm-acquisition-without-background-checks-results-national-survey"] Here's an article about it
[/URL]
As for the table prices, wouldn't you get your money back, and then some, but just selling one or two of your guns?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you'll cover the ~$100 fee at some of the smaller shows, but you're also losing $100 value off of the one or two items you just sold at minimal value. A private seller isn't turning a profit on guns because they aren't selling something new-in-box, it's something that's been used and is likely going to be haggled down to nothing. Plus, there has never been a booth at any show I've been to that hasn't been stacked with guns, implying that the people who buy booths aren't private seller Fudd's trying to make $100.
Also, private sellers/gun owners would tell you that they would absolutely love to have the ability to run the background check on their private buyers. No responsible gun owner is going to sell to some deranged or troubled person knowingly. The issue there is that doing a check on private sales requires the seller to use an FFL to run a check, which is a) another hoop to jump through in an attempt at being an upstanding citizen/gun owner, and b) a $35 charge just to do the right thing.
So what private sellers do to get around the FFL issue is that they often ask for buyers to show a valid CCL/CCW (concealed carry license) at the time of purchase. This implies that the buyer has a valid license to carry and is trusted by the state, as well as having passed the background check that they do before issuing the license. You can go on armslist.com and look at your local listings and I am sure you will find that a good number of them mention requiring that license in the ad body.
[QUOTE=MR-X;53141383]Guess I ultimately misunderstood the issue. I know people come in to shows with guns and intend to look for a buyer, maybe that is what I saw instead of an acctual FFL and i confused the people as a FFL When they're just regular joes. My mistake and misunderstanding.
Guess my whole point is there should be some type of access to background checks for private sales. I think it would be benefitical.[/QUOTE]
I think they should totally be a more accessible [U]option.[/U]
But you also shouldn't have to run a background check to give a gun to your relative or friend as a gift
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53141418]Yeah, you'll cover the ~$100 fee at some of the smaller shows, but you're also losing $100 value off of the one or two items you just sold at minimal value. A private seller isn't turning a profit on guns because they aren't selling something new-in-box, it's something that's been used and is likely going to be haggled down to nothing. Plus, there has never been a booth at any show I've been to that hasn't been stacked with guns, implying that the people who buy booths aren't private seller Fudd's trying to make $100.
Also, private sellers/gun owners would tell you that they would absolutely love to have the ability to run the background check on their private buyers. No responsible gun owner is going to sell to some deranged or troubled person knowingly. The issue there is that doing a check on private sales requires the seller to use an FFL to run a check, which is a) another hoop to jump through in an attempt at being an upstanding citizen/gun owner, and b) a $35 charge just to do the right thing.
So what private sellers do to get around the FFL issue is that they often ask for buyers to show a valid CCL/CCW (concealed carry license) at the time of purchase. This implies that the buyer has a valid license to carry and is trusted by the state, as well as having passed the background check that they do before issuing the license. You can go on armslist.com and look at your local listings and I am sure you will find that a good number of them mention requiring that license in the ad body.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate private sellers stepping in where government regulations are currently failing (i.e: they aren't required to do a background check, but as responsible gun owners they ask people to show valid CCL/CCW).
That being said, I wouldn't be arguing to get rid of the FFL and replace it with business discretion in requesting their buyers show a valid CCL/CCW. I imagine the FFL background check is significantly more stringent and harder to game than procuring a license. So I do think, if we care about people being able to get guns without background checks, that the current law does allow for millions of guns to be circulated and changed hands without background checks.
To be honest with you, I consider this an incredibly small fish to fry that I'm not losing much sleep about it, but it is a pretty clear-cut example of a loophole in a law that tries to make sure that background checks are run every time guns change hands. The current law doesn't do that, and conservative estimates suggest that 1/5th of the guns changing hands don't involve a background check.
[QUOTE=J!NX;53141250]this image is an absolute clusterfuck
"god given rights"
I'm sick of hearing this, as if god himself said in the bible "thou must hath guns!"
"Supreme law, not repealable"
Founding fathers themselves wanted the government to be malleable to the times, not be worshiped like an absolute truth like, yes, the bible that we put everywhere as anti-communist propaganda
they also didn't want people to selectively skirt around wording[/QUOTE]
I totally believe the founding fathers intended firearms to be legal for private citizens to own to defend themselves from government tyranny.
But turns out the founding fathers don't have any better of a view into what constitute the inalienable and natural rights of man than any other collection of people, and I don't believe the idea of natural rights exists to begin with. Natural rights are what I think they are, and what you think they are. And when our country has a problem with frequent mass killings that other developed nations do not, it's time to investigate why we're letting a centuries-old piece of paper inform our opinion that that's a totally acceptable state of affairs.
I am not even against gun ownership. I think guns are interesting and have been to the range myself in the past. But I'm sick of people with what amounts to a hobby no more important than anyone else's telling us we're not even allowed to consider getting rid of guns.
[QUOTE=Flameon;53141453]I appreciate private sellers stepping in where government regulations are currently failing (i.e: they aren't required to do a background check, but as responsible gun owners they ask people to show valid CCL/CCW).
That being said, I wouldn't be arguing to get rid of the FFL and replace it with business discretion in requesting their buyers show a valid CCL/CCW. I imagine the FFL background check is significantly more stringent and harder to game than procuring a license. So I do think, if we care about people being able to get guns without background checks, that the current law does allow for millions of guns to be circulated and changed hands without background checks.
To be honest with you, I consider this an incredibly small fish to fry that I'm not losing much sleep about it, but it is a pretty clear-cut example of a loophole in a law that tries to make sure that background checks are run every time guns change hands. The current law doesn't do that, and conservative estimates suggest that 1/5th of the guns changing hands don't involve a background check.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you mean about removing the FFL.
But the background check that an FFL runs at the time of purchase as well as the check the state does for your CCL license are one and the same (I believe, Grenadiac might be able to extrapolate on that more).
The solution you are looking for here is opening up the background check system so that it can be accessible to private parties, not just FFL holders. This would require the system to be moved to nearly all electronic checks, as well as removal of the $35 fee. I'm sure that the government could budget in some minuscule amount of cash to cover that expense if they wanted to make a meaningful change in the game.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53141470]I'm not sure what you mean about removing the FFL.
But the background check that an FFL runs at the time of purchase as well as the check the state does for your CCL license are one and the same (I believe, Grenadiac might be able to extrapolate on that more).
The solution you are looking for here is opening up the background check system so that it can be accessible to private parties, not just FFL holders. This would require the system to be moved to nearly all electronic checks, as well as removal of the $35 fee. I'm sure that the government could budget in some minuscule amount of cash to cover that expense if they wanted to make a meaningful change in the game.[/QUOTE]
I definitely support the idea of requiring everyone to do background checks but making it accessible to private parties (i.e: like you said, waiving the 35 fee)
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;53141465]I totally believe the founding fathers intended firearms to be legal for private citizens to own to defend themselves from government tyranny.
But turns out the founding fathers don't have any better of a view into what constitute the inalienable and natural rights of man than any other collection of people, and I don't believe the idea of natural rights exists to begin with. Natural rights are what I think they are, and what you think they are. And when our country has a problem with frequent mass killings that other developed nations do not, it's time to investigate why we're letting a centuries-old piece of paper inform our opinion that that's a totally acceptable state of affairs.
I am not even against gun ownership. I think guns are interesting and have been to the range myself in the past. But I'm sick of people with what amounts to a hobby no more important than anyone else's telling us we're not even allowed to consider getting rid of guns.[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't have to consider getting rid of guns. You should consider the actual causes of these issues that guns are blamed for. Suicide? Probably wasn't a gun that drove someone to that level of despair. Murder? I doubt the gun was the building factor to that kind of violence and desperation.
But the people who want to get rid of guns are no better than the people on the far right who fight for the polar opposite. There are perfectly acceptable and effective measures that exist in between that would keep both sides happy, they just unfortunately require people to actually exert effort to accomplish.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
