[QUOTE=Revenge282;52409977]If that is the, then all the more reason to make it available to the public? Why put someone at the mercy of an FFL to do a background check when the whole thing could just be as simple as looking up someone on some webpage with a driver's license ID or similar?
The only reason I thought that was how those checks worked is because that is what the FFL told me when I bought my first gun on my own, along with saying I could skip the background check in the future with a CC permit. So I guess I should have taken that with a grain of salt. Thanks for the clarification.[/QUOTE]
Its not made available to the public so people can't start a gun business without an FFL. Its for tax purposes more than anything else. Saying "put people at the mercy of an FFL" is a little extreme don't you think? Most charge $20-$25 for a transfer.
That FFL was bullshitting you, sorry. And having a CC doesnt skip the BC fully, you still have a form to fill out so they have record of it. Having one when you buy a gun saves you about 10 seconds.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52405512]He's come out as being for the AWB, he voted to "ban some semi-automatic weapons," he voted for banning "high" capacity magazines (over 10 rounds), etc. He hasn't been very explicit about where he stands on general gun control and has made some questionable statements.
He's more open to guns than your average democrat, but he's not at the level of the GOP.[/QUOTE]
Some of his votes were the result of specific amendments in those bills. There was one bill, the Brady Bill, which had several amendments throughout the course of it's life that kept him voting against it.
He's also publically said he does not hold gun manufacturers accountable if their products are used in crimes or attacks, because it's like taking a bat and hitting someone over the head and then blaming the maker of that bat for the attack.
I can understand the issue of cosmetic definitions of weapons being bad. But can someone explain to me the problems with having smaller magazines? If your doing it for a hobby or hunting does having a 30 round magazine really seem necessary? If your on a range, just reload. And if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer then you are a terrible hunter.
[QUOTE=cherry gmod;52434337]I can understand the issue of cosmetic definitions of weapons being bad. But can someone explain to me the problems with having smaller magazines? If your doing it for a hobby or hunting does having a 30 round magazine really seem necessary? If your on a range, just reload. And if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer then you are a terrible hunter.[/QUOTE]
It is a feel-good restriction that has no tangible effect on gun deaths. Government is not in the business of banning things just because you don't need them and they might be dangerous.
The [i]gargantuan[/i] majority of shootings - including most recent mass shootings - are performed with handguns. The ones performed with ARs still usually use "standard-capacity" 10 rd mags. The ones that don't (notably the drum mag theater shooting) usually jam.
It's not a matter of why we need it, it's a matter of why we should be prohibited from owning it in an ass-backwards manner that ensures only criminals get to use them.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;52403944]Agreed. Their "Ban everything" approach is actually the EXACT reason why I'm a republican/right winger. I agree with some of their ideals (legalization of certain recreational drugs, gay marriage) but it was the things like "Common Sense" gun control (AKA ban just about everything) that pushed me to the other party as the independents/third parties will never, ever, ever hold a major position in office unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
"I'll vote for removing same sex marriage rights, fucking over poor people, killing 40 000 people a year because of our awful healthcare system, making sure Jesus stays in school, and racist foreign policy so long as I can pew pew"
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52434597]"I'll vote for removing same sex marriage rights, fucking over poor people, killing 40 000 people a year because of our awful healthcare system, making sure Jesus stays in school, and racist foreign policy so long as I can pew pew"[/QUOTE]
Damn, way to go jumping on the moral highground while poorly generalizing every single republican. There is such thing as a "moderate" in politics.....
[editline]5th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=cherry gmod;52434337]I can understand the issue of cosmetic definitions of weapons being bad. But can someone explain to me the problems with having smaller magazines? If your doing it for a hobby or hunting does having a 30 round magazine really seem necessary? If your on a range, just reload. And if you need 30 rounds to kill a deer then you are a terrible hunter.[/QUOTE]
Because it doesn't do anything to actually make guns less lethal. Magazine capacity bans are super easy to get around too, all you need is a drill or a hammer.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52434597]"I'll vote for removing same sex marriage rights, fucking over poor people, killing 40 000 people a year because of our awful healthcare system, making sure Jesus stays in school, and racist foreign policy so long as I can pew pew"[/QUOTE]
If you think for a second that this attitude is not part of our bipartisan problem, you're 100% wrong.
What does this sarcastic and generalized comment add to any discussion taking place in this thread?
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52434894]Damn, way to go jumping on the moral highground while poorly generalizing every single republican. There is such thing as a "moderate" in politics.....
[/QUOTE]
I'm not generalizing every single republican, I'm talking about the [B]ACTUAL POLICIES[/B] that the current president that republicans voted in wants to pass.
[editline]5th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Protocol7;52434914]If you think for a second that this attitude is not part of our bipartisan problem, you're 100% wrong.
What does this sarcastic and generalized comment add to any discussion taking place in this thread?[/QUOTE]
It highlights how fucking stupid it is to be a single issue voter, especially with guns, when the entire political climate is inhumanly fucked atm.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;52434979]I'm not generalizing every single republican, I'm talking about the [B]ACTUAL POLICIES[/B] that the current president that republicans voted in wants to pass./QUOTE]
Trump has said extremely little in regards to guns aside from the paper he published right after he was elected. Same for most Republicans currently in office. The only thing that comes to mind is the HPA.
Youre just being a dickhead dood, dont try to justify it
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52435003]i absolutely cannot get behind dudes who say they agree with most democratic policies but their tipping point is their gun hobby
guns are cool but putting republicans in office always fucks with minorities i.e. me and the people i love and a plethora of other pretty awful things that these voters apparently already know judging by their other views
if dems wanted to ban videogames or some shit (and really i suppose they do along with repubs) i'd still vote them or whatever progressive party because i can lose that shit, i dont want to lose my civil liberties and affordable healthcare[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to budge because things like same sex marriage, healthcare, and things like marijuana are going to improve in the years. People are becoming more and more accepting all the time. They can be fought as much as people want but its trending towards improving in all of those things. Gun rights have been going backwards for decades, starting with the NFA, GCA, Hughes Amendment and now these "Assault Weapon" bans, "High Capacity Magazine" bans.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52435003]i absolutely cannot get behind dudes who say they agree with most democratic policies but their tipping point is their gun hobby
guns are cool but putting republicans in office always fucks with minorities i.e. me and the people i love and a plethora of other pretty awful things that these voters apparently already know judging by their other views
if dems wanted to ban videogames or some shit (and really i suppose they do along with repubs) i'd still vote them or whatever progressive party because i can lose that shit, i dont want to lose my civil liberties and affordable healthcare[/QUOTE]
But look at it this way, if the democrats loosened their grip on gun control, you would see a [i]huge[/i] shift to blue. Nobody is going to stop voting democrat just because they aren't going to enact tighter gun control. Who else are they going to vote for, the republicans?
That's why this vocal group of gun nuts is one of the biggest untapped voter bases for the democrats right now. But they won't pull the trigger and welcome them into their voter base, because they think this nonsensical outrage against guns is somehow getting them more votes, when it's really not.
So you'll keep seeing these gun rights folks out there because if the democrats want to piss away that opportunity and keep burdening them with these worthless cosmetic bans and mag bans, they're just going to vote republican.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52435003]i absolutely cannot get behind dudes who say they agree with most democratic policies but their tipping point is their gun hobby
guns are cool but putting republicans in office always fucks with minorities i.e. me and the people i love and a plethora of other pretty awful things that these voters apparently already know judging by their other views
if dems wanted to ban videogames or some shit (and really i suppose they do along with repubs) i'd still vote them or whatever progressive party because i can lose that shit, i dont want to lose my civil liberties and affordable healthcare[/QUOTE]
Heres the thing; video games are not a garunteed right in the US Constitution.
If the Republicans wanted to remove the 1A, I would happily vote against republicans despite the chance of me losing my gun rights.
Like it or not, some things are more important to people than others. If Sanders said he wanted to start putting more strict regulations on cars, like a maximum of 5 cylinders and governed speeds of 60mph, he would probably lose every one of his car enthusiasts voters
[editline]5th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52435230]Uhh that other shit is going backwards too under conservative rule, can we talk about affordable healthcare being reversed soon or how states are starting to reverse the gay marriage shit[/QUOTE]
"Affordable healthcare" isnt affordable. The ACA is a complete shitshow.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52435163]But look at it this way, if the democrats loosened their grip on gun control, you would see a [i]huge[/i] shift to blue.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kharkovus;52411337]I posted this in another thread, but public opinion is maybe not the same as people in this thread seem to think. A majority of [I]republicans alone[/I] support a ban on assault weapons, and about 65-70% of the U.S populace does.
[T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/22133322/FT_17.06.21_gunsParty.png[/T]
[T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104551/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-04-04.png[/T]
[T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104540/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-04-01.png[/T]
Really interesting article. [url]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/[/url][/QUOTE]
No?
[editline]5th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52435420]Heres the thing; video games are not a garunteed right in the US Constitution.[/QUOTE]
So you value whatever is protected by a 200 years old constitution more than the health and lives of your fellow citizens?
[QUOTE]Like it or not, some things are more important to people than others. If Sanders said he wanted to start putting more strict regulations on cars, like a maximum of 5 cylinders and governed speeds of 60mph, he would probably lose every one of his car enthusiasts voters[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and we'd say those single issue voters are fucking stupid as well. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, we reserve the right to criticize those opinions for being shit.
[QUOTE]"Affordable healthcare" isnt affordable. The ACA is a complete shitshow.[/QUOTE]
Tell that to the people who couldn't be covered by health insurance otherwise.
But you're right, the republicans' proposed replacement is so much less of a shitshow... Oh wait.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436023]
So you value whatever is protected by a 200 years old constitution more than the health and lives of your fellow citizens?
[/QUOTE]
...the same constitution granting every other vital right that American citizens have, yes. That's pretty important.
Unless you want to just ignore the constitution completely, considering it's [i]over 200 years old![/i] How horrible and old! Absolutely nothing in it can apply! Free speech? Fuck that shit, it's on an [i]old document.[/i] It must be wrong, because it's old!
[QUOTE=geel9;52436137]...the same constitution granting every other vital right that American citizens have, yes. That's pretty important.
Unless you want to just ignore the constitution completely, considering it's [i]over 200 years old![/i] How horrible and old! Absolutely nothing in it can apply! Free speech? Fuck that shit, it's on an [i]old document.[/i] It must be wrong, because it's old![/QUOTE]
Technically guns have only been considered a personal right since [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller]2008[/url]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;52435003]i absolutely cannot get behind dudes who say they agree with most democratic policies but their tipping point is their gun hobby[/QUOTE]
It's hard to put your support behind someone who openly hates your guts and demonizes you at every opportunity. If they would just drop the gun thing, a lot more people would be confident in voting for them.
I still supported Obama but his gun control speeches after every mass shooting were awful.
[QUOTE=geel9;52436137]...the same constitution granting every other vital right that American citizens have, yes. That's pretty important.
Unless you want to just ignore the constitution completely, considering it's [i]over 200 years old![/i] How horrible and old! Absolutely nothing in it can apply! Free speech? Fuck that shit, it's on an [i]old document.[/i] It must be wrong, because it's old![/QUOTE]
Is the absence of gun control such a ~vital~ right that it warrants fucking everything else up for the sake of it?
Never brought up freedom of speech. Just pointed out that the constitution doesn't take priority over basic morals. Founding fathers worship shouldn't get in the way of being a decent human being.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436353]Is the absence of gun control such a ~vital~ right that it warrants fucking everything else up for the sake of it?[/QUOTE]
Considering it is part of the foundation of our Constitution yes, encroachment on that makes the entire bill fair game. Imagine what this country would be like if Trump was able to arrest people for saying mean things about him?
And before someone says "but that's an amendment", here's a response from r/AskHistorians on a question about why the Bill of Rights was tagged onto the Constitution.
[quote]The main reason they are in the amendment portion is because of the debate between the Federalists and anti Federalists ( big structured government vs small localized government) . The anti federalists feared a resurgence of the wrongs brought upon them by the British empire,since during the previous Articles of Confederation, several events had transpired that made some of these power grabs good ideas ( mainly the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion). The anti federalists goal was to craft a new form of Government aimed at individual liberty, rather than broad structure or enacted law.The only way to ensure this liberty would be a written statement of freedoms that the government would need interwoven into it's very core,so that it's entire function rested on maintaining these rights. The Federalist goal meanwhile was to create a Union that served to function as one and as the many seperate voices of the individual states. While individual​ liberty was important to them,reorganizing and restructure in the post AOC mindset was more important,as several similar sentiments (like Shay's) were often common among those displeased with the current government. After all,the main reason for the American Revolution was a failure of Government to listen and react to the people's demands. Any conflict of individual liberty would be held up by those in power based on the will of the people and the harsh memories of being under british rule.
However,the Federalists argued that an explicit statement of such rights was unnecessary,as in their mind,the Constitution was a blueprint for the function and operation of the Government,not (at least at the very core of "x does this when y does that" kind of instruction) a document about the individual. However, several states opposed the Constitution without an explicit statement, and eventually even key Federalist Thomas Jefferson stated "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.".
So it was added in the Amendment portion as more of an "Addition" v.s an "amendium". These rights were never intentionally left out so as to be removed later,but would rather be implicit rather than explicit rights,leaving the Judiciary branch to maintain them.[/quote]
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436023]No?[/QUOTE]
You're proving my point, unfortunately:
[t]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/22133322/FT_17.06.21_gunsParty.png[/t]
This is the only one which contributes anything to your counter-argument but shows that only half (roughly) of republicans support an assault weapons ban. That's a big leap to say the other half would not vote democrat if the democrats dropped a ban.
Of course, you might see some dems swing back to red as well. But the republicans are currently keeping a stronghold on the gun rights single-issue voters. By and large, democrat voters aren't going to make gun rights a single-issue topic.
[t]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104551/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-04-04.png[/t]
This is a fun one because the biggest issue by a long shot is the ease with which people ILLEGALLY obtain guns. That means only 14% of the population really thinks that our gun laws are being enforced properly and doing anything productive. The other 86% thinks our gun laws would be useful were they enforced. So what are we busy doing passing [i]more[/i] laws that aren't going to be enforced either?
But this data is somewhat discredited anyway, in my opinion, by the fact that apparently 60% of respondents think that gun violence in video games contributes to gun violence in reality.
[t]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104540/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-04-01.png[/t]
The data is presented in a way that implies that most people think stricter laws would reduce mass shootings, when it's actually the opposite. It says a lot that out of all adults, ~52% think that adding more gun laws would be useless or would make the problem worse. Further, 71% of gun owners - you know, the people who actually know things about guns and happen to generally be experts on the topic - believe that stricter legislation wouldn't help.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436353]Is the absence of gun control such a ~vital~ right that it warrants fucking everything else up for the sake of it?
Never brought up freedom of speech. Just pointed out that the constitution doesn't take priority over basic morals. Founding fathers worship shouldn't get in the way of being a decent human being.[/QUOTE]
If something's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. If you want to change that, find 38 states willing to change it. If you manage to do that, by all means, enact these bullshit circlejerk laws that don't change anything and aren't enforced properly. But until then, it's unconstitutional.
I thought it was just common fucking sense, if guns are harder to get, it's less likely mentally unstable kids or adults will get their hands on them.
As much as every American loves their guns there is no denying that. Just use most other countries with strict gun control as an example. A mix of buybacks and bans would be a helpful start.
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52436634]I thought it was just common fucking sense, if guns are harder to get, it's less likely mentally unstable kids or adults will get their hands on them.
As much as every American loves their guns there is no denying that. Just use most other countries with strict gun control as an example. A mix of buybacks and bans would be a helpful start.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately most other countries with strict gun control 1.) don't have constitutional requirements blocking a ban, and 2.) have the infrastructure, money, public support, and small size for a gun buyback to have any significant effect on non-suicide deaths. I agree that they'd reduce suicides but they would not do much for actual gun crime rates.
There is also the small issue of the American gun industry being enormous and really one of our few powerful manufacturing sectors right now. We produce somewhere around 10 million guns a year. Trying to buy back just as many is a losing battle and a waste of money.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52436741]Unfortunately most other countries with strict gun control 1.) don't have constitutional requirements blocking a ban, and 2.) have the infrastructure, money, public support, and small size for a gun buyback to have any significant effect on non-suicide deaths. I agree that they'd reduce suicides but they would not do much for actual gun crime rates.
There is also the small issue of the American gun industry being enormous and really one of our few powerful manufacturing sectors right now. We produce somewhere around 10 million guns a year. Trying to buy back just as many is a losing battle and a waste of money.[/QUOTE]
Most other countries also don't have a gun lobby
[QUOTE=LAMB SAUCE;52436634]I thought it was just common fucking sense, if guns are harder to get, it's less likely mentally unstable kids or adults will get their hands on them.
As much as every American loves their guns there is no denying that. Just use most other countries with strict gun control as an example. A mix of buybacks and bans would be a helpful start.[/QUOTE]
For one, comparing countries is fucking dumb; no 2 countries are exactly alike to justify comparing them.
Furthermore, you can look at your own countried gun ban if you really want to compare things; your gun ban has had no appreciable affect on crime. The crime rate has continued to descend at the same rate as before the ban.
[editline]6th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436023]
So you value whatever is protected by a 200 years old constitution more than the health and lives of your fellow citizens?[/quote]
If you put it like that, yes. Rights are more important than most things in this country. The 2A is there to protect other rights, 1A being the most important to me.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436023]
Yeah, and we'd say those single issue voters are fucking stupid as well. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, we reserve the right to criticize those opinions for being shit.[/quote]
Ok
[QUOTE=_Axel;52436023]
Tell that to the people who couldn't be covered by health insurance otherwise.
But you're right, the republicans' proposed replacement is so much less of a shitshow... Oh wait.[/QUOTE]
Lol dood, healthcare still isn't affordable. Now they just punish you for not having healthcare. I was slapped with a $2500 fine 2 years ago because when I switched employers, I lost coverage for about a month.
Even the cheapest ACA plans aren't affordable at all, and even then their level of coverage is pathetic. I think the base plan requires you to pay $7500 before insurance pays a single penny.
I don't think you understand how healthcare works in this country. Until the big corporate healthcare providers disapear, or theyre able to compete across state lines to keep prices low, we're not ever going to see "affordable" healthcare.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52435420]
"Affordable healthcare" isnt affordable. The ACA is a complete shitshow.[/QUOTE]
I hope you're for universal healthcare then
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52436881]Lol dood, healthcare still isn't affordable. Now they just punish you for not having healthcare. I was slapped with a $2500 fine 2 years ago because when I switched employers, I lost coverage for about a month.
Even the cheapest ACA plans aren't affordable at all, and even then their level of coverage is pathetic. I think the base plan requires you to pay $7500 before insurance pays a single penny.
I don't think you understand how healthcare works in this country. Until the big corporate healthcare providers disapear, or theyre able to compete across state lines to keep prices low, we're not ever going to see "affordable" healthcare.[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you're arguing the finer points of the ACA in a gun rights thread but I can tell you for a fact that I would be paying $1500/mo absolute minimum due to a non-controllable pre-existing birth condition whereas I'm now paying nothing. And while I may have to pay a good chunk of change if I get hit by a car, I won't be bankrupted by uncontrollable bills, and I won't be turned away for not having insurance.
So please feel free to give me some universal healthcare but don't even think for a second that the ACA did not secure at least basic healthcare for millions of Americans.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52436906]I hope you're for universal healthcare then[/QUOTE]
Absolutely
[editline]6th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52436966]I don't know why you're arguing the finer points of the ACA in a gun rights thread but I can tell you for a fact that I would be paying $1500/mo absolute minimum due to a non-controllable pre-existing birth condition whereas I'm now paying nothing. And while I may have to pay a good chunk of change if I get hit by a car, I won't be bankrupted by uncontrollable bills, and I won't be turned away for not having insurance.
So please feel free to give me some universal healthcare but don't even think for a second that the ACA did not secure at least basic healthcare for millions of Americans.[/QUOTE]
Wish I could pay absolutely nothing. Currently I'm paying $200 a month for the bare minimum, which only covers 80% of my costs after $7500 out of pocket. Doesnt cover clinic or ER visits either. Its fucking criminal but I'm forced to have it or suffer severe fines come tax return season.
The topic was brought up in a retarded statement about how me voting for politicians that are pro gun are also politicians that want to kill Americans by denying them health insurance. Blatant strawmanning.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52436749]Most other countries also don't have a gun lobby[/QUOTE]
Every country has a gun lobby, it's just that none are as powerful as the NRA. Canada has 3 major organizations as part of its gun lobby, the NFA, CSSA, and CCFR.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52436564]If something's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. If you want to change that, find 38 states willing to change it. If you manage to do that, by all means, enact these bullshit circlejerk laws that don't change anything and aren't enforced properly. But until then, it's unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]
Which is another reason why single issue voters who vote republican because of gun rights have their priorities way out of order. Not only is prioritizing your weapons over your fellow citizens quite unempathetic, it's also stupid to vote republican on those grounds if you disagree with the rest of their platform, since the democrats' goal regarding gun rights is unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52436881]If you put it like that, yes. Rights are more important than most things in this country. The 2A is there to protect other rights, 1A being the most important to me.[/QUOTE]
This purpose of "protecting your rights" people attach to the second amendment is little more than an American fantasy. Most first world countries don't grant a right to bear arms, and our rights are not being infringed upon any more than yours. The belief that a few rednecks with shotguns are going to stand up to the worlds' most powerful army is delusional, anyway.
If you want to protect your rights, you better work on your broken checks and balance system instead of focusing on firearms. Your guns seem to be doing a pretty poor job of preventing the bumbling buffoon in the WH from depriving US citizens of basic needs.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52437084]The topic was brought up in a retarded statement about how me voting for politicians that are pro gun are also politicians that want to kill Americans by denying them health insurance. Blatant strawmanning.[/QUOTE]
My point is that voting for republicans based on the single issue of gun rights disregards more important and blatant issues republicans are only going to make worse.
If the republicans proposed a better alternative than the ACA, you would have a point. But their interests seem to point against it and they don't seem to have any idea what they're doing on top of that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.