No, they are not the same thing, and you still have connected the production of a specific magazine size of caliber to the Second Amendment in any meaningful way.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
No, they are not the same thing, and you still have connected the production of a specific magazine size of caliber to the Second Amendment in any meaningful way.
I am not opposed to banning them, but do not support banning them, either, as a first principle. I support whatever the evidence indicates will provide for safer streets.
My current guess is that if carrying guns were more like driving cars (you had to prove your knowledge and abilities, register and license, carry insurance, etc.) that it would be safer all around than either a "no gun" or "zero gun control" extreme. But that's just a guess.
Justify for me a purpose for banning the production of 9mm weapons that is something other than an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment.
Are they made of poisonous material? Do they blow up every time you use them?
The attempt to ban high capacity magazines and individual weapons is an attempt to limit the 2nd amendment, nothing more. The people proposing these laws admit that none of them would have prevented the shootings that have taken place. So it can't be about preventing similar shootings. It is simply that supporters feel that American citizens should not have them. Well to bad.
I do not have to prove why I have the right to the 2nd amendment or ay other amendment. You have to prove why I should not have that right. You want to seperate the issue and I will not allow it. Banning current weapons and accessories that I am legally allowed to own right now infringes on my second amendment. You are not arguing that producers simply no longer choose to supply a specific item, you are arguing for being prohibited by the government from suppling a specific item.
You seemed confused on where the burden of proof lies. I do not buy your arguement or your attempt to cloud it and nit pick at it. There are issues that I will give ground on. My rights are not one of them.
I don't have a specific argument for 9 mm. Could you ban 50 mm weapons without impinging on your 2nd amendment rights? Can there be any sort of weapon ban that does not impinge (say, a ban on Sarin gas)? I don't recall you saying that every sort of weapon possible should be legal to own.
So, you are agreeing there can be could reasons to limit your possession of a weapon. I'm quite willing to concede that such reasons may not apply to individual 9 mm bullets. Thus, we have (again) moved from saying it's 'My right, period!' to 'It's my right as long as there is not a compelling reason to say otherwise', which is a position I can agree with, and all that's left to discuss are which reasons are compelling, and to what degree. Perhaps we can stay there, this time?
Is the only legitimate compelling reason the complete prevention of such incidents? What if modifications were included that could, say, cut the typical loss of life by 90% (that is, given the same amount of time, a shooter might only be able to kill 2 people instead of 20). Would saving those 18 lives qualify as a compelling government interest? Or, are you of the opinion thee is no difference between 2 dying and 20 dying? Would there be a difference between 10 and 20? 19 and 20?
Of course, I'm not saying any such modifications are to be had right now; I don't understand guns well enough to make such a claim. However, hypothetically, let's say legal magazine sizes were limited to 6 bullets, and that with extra time required to constantly load and unload, the shooters efficiency is reduced to killing only 19 instead of 20. We could run tests (mock drills and the like) to see if this is true. In the hypothetical case that we can save one life out of 20 by magazine restrictions, would magazine restrictions become an acceptable infringement?
You are quite the jokester.
Ah, great to know. We obviously need to ban all male penetration. Easy to enforce a sperm bank impregnation only law. We owe this to the children born with infectious diseases. We owe this to abuse victims. We owe this to unsuspecting young women in poverty stricken neighborhoods. It's for the children! Protect the children!
I get the feeling it's only those with sex fetishes who are against such common sense protection laws.
96% agree the world is not run by reptilians. What do I win?
In principle I think there are few reasons to oppose a background check.
Calling it "the gun show loophole" is a propaganda term that doesn't represent the reality.
I have attempted to purchase firearms at a gun show. Once many many years ago when my driver's license was expired and I was turned away at Doug's Shoot 'n Sport (local gun shop that's been around for a long time) I tried to get a gun at a gun show. It didn't work. Wanna know why? Because all the people running booths at the gun show were gun store owners. Because they had a Federal Firearm Licence (FFL) they were required to run the same background check as they would have in their store. So, while it would have been possible for a private citizen to rent a booth at the gun show and sell guns from his/her private collection and not run background checks I haven't ever seen that.
I'd like to see someone go in with a hidden camera and try to buy a gun at a gun show without doing a background check. I bet they'll leave empty handed.
The "loophole" that is actually being closed is private person to person firearms transfers. So not only will I have to perform a background check if I want to sell a gun on craigslist, but if my uncle wanted to return some guns that used to belong to my father we'd have to run a background check.
So, how would this work? I can't run a background check from my computer or smartphone. So all private sales would have to include an established FFL holder as middleman so that they could conduct the background check. There is currently a standard practice where a gun store will receive privately ordered firearms from out of state because guns cannot be shipped except from FFL holder to FFL holder. Then you go to the gun store pay a fee, usually around $25 but I've seen as low as $15 and as high as $40, plus the cost of the background check that they're required to run before releasing the gun to you. So in the case of my uncle wanting to give me guns that used to belong to my father to do it legally we'd have to meetup at the gun store, pay the fees and then he could give me the guns.
That's the goal of closing the "loophole." To make private sales of guns get a background check. gun shows have almost nothing to do with it. The gunshow loophole was a fake problem that happened to get a lot of people riled up so they've been runnin' with it.
I think this is not an issue. I get spam every week, at least, from people offering to run background checks on babysitters, lovers, employees, etc. I have no doubt at all that handful, or more, companies would spring up that complied with the needs of any particular proposed legislation in an inexpensive and rapid manner.
Now, I can see preserving the loophole for close familial relations while eliminating the rest of the private sale loophole as a reasonable position, if you also make the close familial relation an accessory to any crimes committed with that gun by the person who receives it. That's just taking responsibility, right?
As demonstrated in this thread I am very pro gun rights. Even I favor an expansion on background checks if done correctly.
I am sure that the evidence will support that ID chips implanted into your body used to track your location at all times will lead to safer streets. Better go get in line.
Your unwillingness to oppose a gun ban is the same as support for it.
It has to be run through the federal database. It isn't just any old standard background check. I believe you currently must be an FFL holder to be able to run the required check and it must be accompanied by the appropriate form (form ATF 4473).
It's an inconvenience and an added expense. It would certainly make sales through KSL or craigslist more difficult, but that is not something I oppose. If this was the kind of thing that was being pushed, but an even more comprehensive and water tight system, I would be on board.
As for the scenario with my uncle and my dad's guns, well if we got off on complying with silly laws we'd probably go through the background check. But the reality is that the guns aren't registered in the first place so if he hands them to me at a family reunion no one would ever be the wiser. There would be no way to prove it after the fact.
I see your point. I also see a big difference between imposing a device on your body and restricting the type of items available for purchase, mostly because I haven't see an argument on why self-defense is improved by having 30 bullets instead of 6.
Currently, you have to be FFL to be required to run the check. I suspect that if they broaden the requirements for who needs to get a check, they will also broaden the companies that can get the checks. Business interests will insist.
I think business interests will insist on the opposite. It's private person to person sales that do not require a background check, so all the current FFL holders will want to be able to charge a $25 fee and the $7.50 for the background check. Plus, since we're talking about running a background check they'll want a trusted agent (an FFL holder) to verify the ID and such.
Depends on the business interest. I'm sure Check'N'Go, which already has significant identification and background verification abilities, would love a chance to compete, as long as they don't have to get a license to buy and sell the guns themselves.
And they want people walking in their front door with a bunch of guns?
candrew
Well-Known Member
Link?
candrew
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you're getting at here - are you saying this is an unreasonable hardship?
What if your uncle was giving you a car instead of guns? Would you change your insurance. Change the registration with the DMV?