The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

ATN_Pilot said:
I wouldn't think anything of it. After all, I didn't commit the murder. A person committed the murder, using an inanimate object. He could have just as easily killed someone with a knife. Should we start up background checks on knife sales, too? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So what you're telling me, is if some random person who you don't know anything about, came up to you and wanted to buy your gun with cash, no background check, and the next day went out and shot up some innocent person, you'd feel nothing? If that person was a felon, and they KNEW they could only get a gun through private sales, and you were the one to provide that weapon, you'd feel nothing? When a BASIC background check could have stopped the sale? I just don't understand that mindset. This is exactly why I'm for mental health checks and background checks on firearms.I'm not going to sell my gun to some random stranger. Again, there are people out there who should not be allowed anywhere near a gun, but with your rules, they can just call you up on craigslist and go buy any gun of their choosing provided they have the cash. That's scary.

These inanimate devices are weapons. Even I as a gun owner can see that. I didn't buy my shotgun just because it looks nice sitting in the house, I bought it as a WEAPON to defend myself and my property in case someone decides to kick the door in at night. Weapons in the wrongs hands lead us to exactly where we are in this country.
 
Mark815 said:
So what you're telling me, is if some random person who you don't know anything about, came up to you and wanted to buy your gun with cash, no background check, and the next day went out and shot up some innocent person, you'd feel nothing?
Click to expand...

Of course I wouldn't feel anything. I didn't commit a crime. I didn't do anything immoral. Why should I feel anything? That would be like feeling guilty for selling your car to someone who the next day ran over someone while driving drunk. I can't imagine that you would feel guilty then, would you? The situation is no different.

Of course, this all presupposes something quite ridiculous: that I would ever get rid of a gun rather than acquiring more of them. :)

These inanimate devices ARE weapons.
Click to expand...

So is a knife. Do you want to background check those as well? :rolleyes:

Some of us value freedom, and understand that there may occasionally be bad things that happen as a result of freedom. The freedom of speech means that idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say vile things like "God Hates Queers," and yes, some gay people will commit suicide after being harassed and told that they are evil. Do we then outlaw freedom of speech? Of course not. We accept that there are negative repercussions sometimes for freedom, and we know that the benefits of freedom outweigh the detriments.
 
My understanding is the vast majority of gun crimes by repeat offenders are committed using guns long since entered in the black market, having been stolen or otherwise acquired illegally before the criminal commits said gun crime. I believe it is exceedingly rare someone commits a crime using a firearm acquired legally through a private party.

Just thinking here, but maybe a tax credit to encourage homeowners and rental unit owners to install safes?


Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
 
staledog said:
Interesting that you and cmill say that. I believe you, but I haven't seen it myself. Even at gun shows I've been to, they make you abide by the waiting period and you have to come back the next day to pick it up if you buy something. Of course I'm talking IL, so I'm sure things are much looser down south. Even with all the private sellers I've encountered, almost all insist on doing a transfer through an FFL. If you don't, and that gun gets used in a crime, it gets traced back to the person who owned it before. Then the original owner is looking at jail time, for selling a gun "illegally", because they didn't go through an FFL.
Click to expand...

That's why I prefer a larger central government and smaller state/local government. For most things, people have the same requirements no matter what state we live in. Things like health care, driving rules, etc. are pretty much the same from state to state. If you have one state that has waiting periods but the next state doesn't. It kind of makes anyone having waiting periods in any state pointless. I saw this in college. Drinking age in ND is 21. So people just drove to Canada (might as well be the 51st state).

In addition to that, using medicare as an example. I don't think that having 50 different offices running their own medicare programs would be as cost efficient as having it be a federal program. Economies of scale and such.

Obviously some states have unique needs because of geographic location. That is what state governments should be in charge of.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Of course I wouldn't feel anything. I didn't commit a crime. I didn't do anything immoral. Why should I feel anything? That would be like feeling guilty for selling your car to someone who the next day ran over someone while driving drunk. I can't imagine that you would feel guilty then, would you? The situation is no different.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the vehicle is not designed as a weapon. A felon isn't prohibited from purchasing a vehicle, unlike a firearm.

Of course, this all presupposes something quite ridiculous: that I would ever get rid of a gun rather than acquiring more of them. :)
Click to expand...

Same here. The moment I brought my shotgun home I was ready to go back out and buy something else.


So is a knife. Do you want to background check those as well? :rolleyes:

Some of us value freedom, and understand that there may occasionally be bad things that happen as a result of freedom. The freedom of speech means that idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say vile things like "God Hates Queers," and yes, some gay people will commit suicide after being harassed and told that they are evil. Do we then outlaw freedom of speech? Of course not. We accept that there are negative repercussions sometimes for freedom, and we know that the benefits of freedom outweigh the detriments.
Click to expand...

It's a very slippery slope. I'm a big fan of freedom. Read some of my other posts and you'll see that I absolutely value our freedom and rights that I have because I'm an American. There is a middle ground however, and that middle ground shouldn't be looked down upon simply because you believe it's an infringement of freedom. The WBC for example have fought and won first amendment protection from the courts, however laws can still be passed to prevent them from protesting where they want. Is that an infringement of the first amendment?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a very important right that we have, but does that mean that anybody should be able to own a gun? If you were required to pass a background check but failed due to a violent crime, and then denied a weapon, is that an infringement of your freedom? Certain rules are actually helpful especially in our modern society. By your logic, anyone who wants a gun should have one. Again, I'm against any form of weapons ban, ammo ban or the like, but to simply say anyone should be able to own a gun is just a bit out there IMO. I love the fact that back home in NH I was able to just go into a store, pick what I wanted and walk out the door with a gun. No registration, and a phone call prior to sale. I think it's awesome, but at the same time it scares me a bit, because I know there are people out there who may not have the mental stability to be in possession of a gun, and it's just as easy for them to get one too.
 
Sadly, I think Mr. Train is right on this. It is not going to be some sweeping gun grab but changes are coming, and something will get through. Unfortunately since our collective ability to use reason and apply it to meaningful discourse pushed from the gate a long time ago, it will be totally ineffective in saving lives, and totally effective in hurting those who have done nothing wrong.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
 
Cazadores said:
My understanding is the vast majority of gun crimes by repeat offenders are committed using guns long since entered in the black market, having been stolen or otherwise acquired illegally before the criminal commits said gun crime. I believe it is exceedingly rare someone commits a crime using a firearm acquired legally through a private party.
Click to expand...

Private sale is one of the largest avenues for guns to enter the black market. A close relative of mine is retired FBI, and he said that gun running like this was hugely common when he was active, and it seems unlikely that would have changed. They would catch known illegal gun sellers with trunk loads of guns being transported from one state to another, and in the car was cash and the various want-ad publications with all of the desired guns circled.

Law abiding citizens buying from law abiding citizens isn't the problem.
 
That is kind of what I am saying, putting a bunch of guns on a truck, even one gun in a glove compartment, and taking it across state lines to sell is illegal, now. I dont see these guys suddenly closing up the black market shop if law abiding private sellers are forced to perform background checks when they sell their old .38 to their coworker, or some other law abiding citizen at the gun show.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
 
Mark815 said:
The difference is that the vehicle is not designed as a weapon. A felon isn't prohibited from purchasing a vehicle, unlike a firearm.
Click to expand...

Lots of people who own guns never intend to use them as a weapon. A friend of mine owns a hangun, but he keeps it locked in a safe, unloaded, with a trigger lock on it. Personally, I think that's ridiculous, but he has no desire to use the gun for self defense. For him, it's just a toy to go to the range with and have fun shooting at targets. It's not a weapon.

The WBC for example have fought and won first amendment protection from the courts, however laws can still be passed to prevent them from protesting where they want. Is that an infringement of the first amendment?
Click to expand...

YES!!!! Yes it is a violation of their first amendment rights! I absolutely despise those people, but they have just as much right to freedom of speech as anyone else.

This idea that you can modify basic human rights is reprehensible. It just leads to further and further violation of those rights, and eventually the right is all but gone. The Founders, Jefferson in particular, favored a Bill of Rights to prevent exactly this. While others argued that our rights were inherent, endowed by our creator, and didn't need government granting those rights in a document, people like Jefferson understood that governments are by their nature tyrannical, and rights will slowly be infringed over time to the point of being completely violated, if the Constitution did not prevent it. But apparently, even Jefferson's foresight wasn't good enough! Now we have people in this country that think it's ok to just ignore what the document says and chip away at it piece by piece. I think he would be flabbergasted if he read what you wrote.
 
Mark815 said:
The difference is that the vehicle is not designed as a weapon. A felon isn't prohibited from purchasing a vehicle, unlike a firearm.



Same here. The moment I brought my shotgun home I was ready to go back out and buy something else.




It's a very slippery slope. I'm a big fan of freedom. Read some of my other posts and you'll see that I absolutely value our freedom and rights that I have because I'm an American. There is a middle ground however, and that middle ground shouldn't be looked down upon simply because you believe it's an infringement of freedom. The WBC for example have fought and won first amendment protection from the courts, however laws can still be passed to prevent them from protesting where they want. Is that an infringement of the first amendment?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a very important right that we have, but does that mean that anybody should be able to own a gun? If you were required to pass a background check but failed due to a violent crime, and then denied a weapon, is that an infringement of your freedom? Certain rules are actually helpful especially in our modern society. By your logic, anyone who wants a gun should have one. Again, I'm against any form of weapons ban, ammo ban or the like, but to simply say anyone should be able to own a gun is just a bit out there IMO. I love the fact that back home in NH I was able to just go into a store, pick what I wanted and walk out the door with a gun. No registration, and a phone call prior to sale. I think it's awesome, but at the same time it scares me a bit, because I know there are people out there who may not have the mental stability to be in possession of a gun, and it's just as easy for them to get one too.
Click to expand...

You seem like the kind of person I have zero problem with owning a gun. Logical, rational, and able to get past the emotional "I like guns, so therefor they have to be a good thing in all circumstances."

Its not people with guns that scare me. Its emotional people with guns. Just like other things that are a big responsibility, I don't think gun ownership is for everyone. The same way that I don't believe some people should be pilots, drive fast cars, be parents, etc. I think everyone should have the same opportunity to have these responsibilities. But if you lack judgement...
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Of course I wouldn't feel anything. I didn't commit a crime. I didn't do anything immoral. Why should I feel anything? That would be like feeling guilty for selling your car to someone who the next day ran over someone while driving drunk. I can't imagine that you would feel guilty then, would you? The situation is no different.

Of course, this all presupposes something quite ridiculous: that I would ever get rid of a gun rather than acquiring more of them. :)



So is a knife. Do you want to background check those as well? :rolleyes:

Some of us value freedom, and understand that there may occasionally be bad things that happen as a result of freedom. The freedom of speech means that idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to say vile things like "God Hates Queers," and yes, some gay people will commit suicide after being harassed and told that they are evil. Do we then outlaw freedom of speech? Of course not. We accept that there are negative repercussions sometimes for freedom, and we know that the benefits of freedom outweigh the detriments.
Click to expand...

In this situation there is MUCH mote at stake than gay rights. Think of how China and the U.N. equate in this situation. I'm pretty confident that thay have something to do with it.
 
Cazadores said:
That is kind of what I am saying, putting a bunch of guns on a truck, even one gun in a glove compartment, and taking it across state lines to sell is illegal, now. I dont see these guys suddenly closing up the black market shop if law abiding private sellers are forced to perform background checks when they sell their old .38 to their coworker, or some other law abiding citizen at the gun show.
Click to expand...

Well it prevents the illegal buyer from easily acquiring the trunk load of guns that are later used in crimes.

To me these are the sensible laws we should be working with. Close as many avenues as possible to reduce the illegal guns out there over time. At most this is a slight inconvenience to legal owners, and it does not alter what a law abiding citizen can own. No law is going to prevent what the nut jobs are going to do, but we can make it harder for regular criminals.
 
undflyboy06 said:
I found this about a home invasion in Atlanta. This intruder broke through 3 interior doors to reach the mother who was with her daughters. That's what you get when you break into someone's house.

Click to expand...


Thank God this woman had a firearm and was trained by her husband on how to use it. Can you imagine what this animal was going to do to her and her two daughters?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top