Democrat buys semiautomatic rifle at Va. gun show in under 10 minutes - Polidicks

Again, if you can prove that people buying guns privately is producing a measurable uptick in gun violence, maybe you can sway my position.

But what about the fifty caliber magazine clip that lets you fire 30 rounds in half a second? Classic misrepresentation and misdirection from the politician. "Gun Show Loophole" or really ANY type of "loophole" really means "Something we haven't banned yet." See the standard (No way I'm fucking referring to a 30 round magazine as "high" capacity) capacity magazine "loophole" they discusssed in California, the loophole being people who already owned standard capacity magazines were grandfathered in. So earlier, "We're banning high capacity magazines but you can keep them." later, "The fact they can keep them is a loophole!" Also "Bullet Button Loophole" "Featureless rifle loophole" etc.

Well, sir, you are a crazy man. Not just for declaring you'd 'shoot anybody trying to take away your sea mine arsenal' but also thinking that you deserve that arsenal enough to kill people for it, even if you're being unsafe with it or if they're live mines and you live in a crowded suburb where those mines could kill four family's worth of people if they went off.

Well you said it yourself, guns are already heavily regulated. So just how much more red tape is needed before it's deemed regulated enough? I think the complete cessation of private sales is a step too far and limits freedoms far too much. I have outlined how a private sale system could exist while also allowing for more background checks, how about that? Also, have you done any research on registries at all? They don't stop/solve crimes, their only possible function is as a precursor to confiscation or "mandatory buybacks". The thing is that right now I haven't broken the law, but say for example that the law changes and all of a sudden the AR-15 becomes banned. Then yes, I would quite literally be having my guns taken away because I have then broken a law where I was previously not, and they would be able to do it because I would be on a list of AR-15 owners. Like come on, at least do a lick of research https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/02/29/meet-the-man-responsible-for-the-death-of-canadas-gun-registry/3/#7529367247df Hawaii, Which Registers Guns and Medical Marijuana Users, Starts.. https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html We Told You So—Gun Registration Leads to Confiscation – Doctors .. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/12/canadian-news-anchor-warns-gun-registration-brings/

Either this is the greatest response to sarcasm with sarcasm, or you don't understand sarcasm. Anyway lol.

I would hope if I was a sea mine enthusiast I would have amassed a bigger arsenal than one small enough only capable of killing a measly four families

Yes yes, slippery slope, I get it. Argue against the actual policy in front of you, if it has a provision making guns illegal then you can definitely jump all on it, but don't argue against a phantom.

It's entirely reasonable to argue against gun legislation on the grounds that it is a stepping stone to more infringement considering that is exactly what the trend has been, historically. Rights are taken, and rarely granted back. If you're judging any anti-gun bill in a vacuum, you're being willfully ignorant of the whole picture of guns rights in the US.

TBH those statistics are hard to find. I can't find like "% of how many guns sold privately are used in crime that could have been avoided because the buyer had a troubled background", nor can I even find how many black market guns are from a private seller. As far as I can tell, private sellers don't even keep records about who they sell to? I'm not really sure, but I don't even think there's enough research on this issue. It doesn't take a Rick & Morty genius to figure out that if you have a bad background then you can simply go to a state with fucked up laws and buy one, though.

It's not a phantom, I gave pretty clear examples in the links if you'd take the time to actually open them. Add to that list Australian registration followed by mandatory buyback. And I did argue against the actual policy, and proposed adjustments. It's strange how you say I'm arguing against a phantom when you are the one conjouring a strawman. And what are you even talking about when you say "if it has a provision making guns illegal then you can definitely jump all on it"? Are people not allowed to be against anything less than making guns illegal?

Okay. If you can't find any actual evidence to back up why more private sales produces more danger for the public when there is no correlation between the two in the real world (and in my state, more specifically, the one this article is about) I don't see why I would support walling off private sales altogether. I've already explained why I'm more or less against more restrictive gun control legislation, this falls under that.

Isnt full auto the only function missing? Hell, in army i put my rifle on full auto only once. I'd say that's functionally similiar, even if its not mechanically similiar.

Well, let's see about your earlier claim where federal bans are often not rescinded. What things have been banned and then rescinded that were broad-scope and impacted a bunch of Americans? Well... U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition#United_States (that one was so banned it was amended to the Constitution) Comstock Act | United States [1873] | Britannica.com (not entirely repealed, but large portions of it have been repealed) The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) (again, large sections of this act have been repealed) Obama Lifts Federal Funding Ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Banned and rescinded Perhaps infamously... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban Bad Vibes From Ribes | The Outside Story A ban on Ribes which was rescinded in 1966. Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 (repealed in 1943) Open Collections Program Repealing the 'No Knock' provision of the Drug Abuse and Prevention and Control Act CQ Almanac Online Edition And many others, including the oil export ban and repeal. Repeals do happen, especially when there's enough political and social pressure to ensure it happens.

Just remember that if you believe people should be able to buy guns without a background check that includes people that background checks were made for.

I don't really understand your point here, are you saying that people should be OK with unnecessary and overreaching regulations because there's a chance it might be repealed in the future? How does that make sense? Also the AWB wasn't repealed, it had a sunset date and it expired. And as far as guns go, yes, steps forward (backwards in my eyes) are generally precursors to more steps, more and more legislation has been proposed and passed recently so it's clearly the case that the slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy at all here, look at California, New York and others.

I'm honestly baffled by the amount of people who make the argument "Well myself and my friends have all bought guns through private trade and we haven't killed anyone, so obviously background checks on private trades aren't necessary!" That's great, and it's also not the point. You and your not-murdering friends would have passed the background checks anyways (or, most likely would have, anyways). The argument for stricter background checks and such is for people who wouldn't pass that background check, and, even more importantly, people who do intend to use them in crimes. Like, this is a really simple scenario to play out. If there is someone who absolutely intends to use a firearm in a crime, and would fail a background check, where are they going to get the firearm? Obviously not from a gun shop, since they'll fail the background check. So they'll go to a private seller, who doesn't need to perform a background check. And, as this video demonstrates, ignoring its obvious bias and agenda, 10 minutes later he's walking out with the tool he wanted for committing the crime he intends. I think it's great that background checks are only an inconvenience to the people in this thread and their friends. The fact they're unnecessary because none of you or your friends intend to use the weapons is a good thing. But it also means the background checks aren't meant for you. Saying that background checks on private sales of guns are unnecessary, because you and your friends have never committed a crime with guns, is like saying that locking the doors to your house and car are unnecessary, because you and your friends have never burglarized a house or stole a car. The locks aren't meant for honest people like you, in the same way the background checks aren't meant for honest people like you. And I'm sure someone will bring up "but if someone is really determined to get a gun, they'll get one anyways, no matter how strict the background check laws are." And you are absolutely correct. Just like if someone is really determined to burglarize your house or steal your car, they'll get in anyways, no matter how many locks you put on the door. But I'd imagine you all don't go around leaving your cars and doors unlocked, simply because a particularly determined person will get in anyways. The point of locks is to deter casual or undetermined burglars and thieves. Just like the point of background checks is to deter casual or undetermined criminals. To be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing for increased gun control. I personally think that's a far too complicated situation for such simple "solutions" to be implemented. All I am doing is pointing out what I consider to be dishonest arguments from the anti- camp, and some solid arguments I wish the pro- camp would make more often.

My point is that a lot of people are calling it a 'slippery slope' and characterizing it as a thing that 'once we do, we can't undo' where I can show that even grand, sweeping, constitutional-amendment level reforms and changes can easily be undone by the will of the people, if that will is strong enough.

If you roll by and confiscate my rather sizeable collection of antique arms you aren't going to be able to un-melt them when the amendment is repealed. That can't be undone.

Yes and? So I pay you for the amount that they would be valued? Restitution for damages done is a common thin in our historical law. Many people had their priceless booze collections plundered and smashed during Prohibition. They sought restitution once it was repealed and got it.

If I cared about the money I wouldn't have exchanged it for historic arms. If you dump my bottle of rum down the drain and give me $30 I can go buy another bottle of rum. There will be no replacing what was taken from me.

OK, so you're going to let your stuff be confiscated and then not hold the government accountable. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear that you don't want to be repaid for the damages done to you because you're stubborn. Was a 200 year old bottle of scotch malt whiskey worth the amount of blood spilled to keep it out of the arms of the Feds? No. On neither side was it worth it. Those lives taken couldn't be replaced either - but one was a thing and the other was a life. One can be replaced by something of at least somewhat similar value - the other is absolutely gone forever.

Mine haven't taken lives and aren't going to. You are targeting the wrong demographic.

You keeping an illegal barrel of scotch malt during prohibition would be you being a part of the demographic who would be responsible for those who were conducting raids and being shot for the pursuit of illegally held/obtained/brewed alcohol. Saying 'it's not me' while holding on to the same sort of thing that is causing the problem is less you holding yourself faultless and more you saying 'what I'm holding isn't that' when it's patently obvious that they're the same thing. There's nothing that would separate your scotch malt whiskey from any other if it was brewed at the same time, in the same location, by the same brewer, with the same water, and the same ingredients. Therefore, your scotch malt whiskey would be just as much to blame as every other bottle of it in the US where blood was shed for your right to keep or make it.

So let's make being a gun owner intrinsically illegal rather than maybe find a more nuanced way to solve the problem.

Nobody's suggesting we do 'Prohibition, but for guns'. I'm merely describing how, if we were to compare the two situations, your firearms would be a part of the problem if you continued to keep them in good, working, order - hidden from the feds. We've made good strides in keeping alcohol legal but keeping it at least somewhat out of the arms of people who shouldn't have be drinking it. We've still a long way to go there, just as we do with guns, because what's still happening is still causing far more death than its worth.

I mean literally what you're saying is if the government decides to start shooting people for owning guns I'm in the wrong for defending myself because the law says it's illegal. Which is insanity but I'm not surprised to hear that put forth as an actual argument at this point.

Literally quote me saying that. What you're spouting is insanity, to think that I have stated that.

Quote where I said it was wrong for them to do so.