Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Slims · 12-10-2008, 01:38 PM

Ok, first, I am not an NRA member, and they do produce what is basically propaganda, as do most lobbying organizations.

However, I have presented my case and did so without any 'help' from the NRA. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to think another AWB may be right around the corner. This is because the last democratic administration emplaced a Ban, and now they are in power again and Obama is deliberately dancing around the issue without committing either way. And particularly since, as has been argued on this board, most Americans support another ban. It is a safe bet that with both public support and a supportive administration, such legislation is only a matter of time.

"I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?"

Why not?

"That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans."

But hand guns are used to commit almost all firearms-related murders. Why would any 'reasonable' person who has decided to ban guns, ignore the weapons that are actually killing people and go after ones that aren't because they 'look scary'?

More people in America are beaten to death every year than are killed by rifles and shotguns combined. I know it's a statistic of sorts, but it is a very basic one. Rifles, and in particular, 'assault rifles' are used in an astonishingly small number of crimes. They were also banned under the last AWB based on cosmetic, rather than functional characteristics. Where's the sense in that?

"... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO."

Ok, sell a trigger lock with every firearm. Done, problem solved, end of story.

But what lawmakers are pushing for are 'smart guns' that just don't work reliably, are expensive, and are an end-run to reduce the number and types of firearms legally available.

If your agenda is just to ban firearms, then have the balls to do so in a straightforward way.

"..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away."

Ok, here's the gun show loophole: If you purchase a firearm from a private individual who is not a dealer, then the laws for personal firearms sales apply. Most states require background checks for handgun transfers, but not long guns.

If you are purchasing a firearm from a dealer at a gun show, then the normal laws for purchasing a firearm from any dealer apply, with all background checks.

There is no difference between purchasing a firearm from an individual in a gun-show or out in the parking lot. If you 'close the loophole' you are actually just killing gun shows because people won't bother to go through the hassle when they can purchase straight out of the Shotgun News, legally, without the extra requirements.

Anybody who wouldn't be subject to a background check at a gun show can purchase a weapon through a private transaction anyways.

"...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own assault weapons.. your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets."

The first part is true, they don't see the need. Thanks to the constitution they don't have to. And again, how is a semi-automatic hunting rifle materially different from a semi-automatic 'assault-rifle'? And if you limit magazine capacity again to 10 rounds, how many lives will that save? Seems to me like you can get a lot done with 10 rounds if you are a criminal. Why not go 2 rounds?

"I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans."

Your 'commen sense' approach completely ignores the real problems and instead aims at weapons that are not typically used to commit crimes ('assault weapons') because they are expensive and can't be easily concealed.

They are also the weapons that *should* be most strongly protected under the constitution as they are the closest to military-type rifles available to the general public.

And how is amending the constitution taking away it's flexibility? I fail to see it.

12-10-2008, 01:38 PM	#140 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Ok, first, I am not an NRA member, and they do produce what is basically propaganda, as do most lobbying organizations. However, I have presented my case and did so without any 'help' from the NRA. I don't think it is an unreasonable conclusion to think another AWB may be right around the corner. This is because the last democratic administration emplaced a Ban, and now they are in power again and Obama is deliberately dancing around the issue without committing either way. And particularly since, as has been argued on this board, most Americans support another ban. It is a safe bet that with both public support and a supportive administration, such legislation is only a matter of time. "I'll keep it simple....there are an estimated 240+ million firearms in civilian hands in the US, a nation of 300 million people. Why the fuck do we need more?" Why not? "That being said...buy as many hand guns and sporting weapons as you want. I dont oppose that. Neither does Obama or most Americans." But hand guns are used to commit almost all firearms-related murders. Why would any 'reasonable' person who has decided to ban guns, ignore the weapons that are actually killing people and go after ones that aren't because they 'look scary'? More people in America are beaten to death every year than are killed by rifles and shotguns combined. I know it's a statistic of sorts, but it is a very basic one. Rifles, and in particular, 'assault rifles' are used in an astonishingly small number of crimes. They were also banned under the last AWB based on cosmetic, rather than functional characteristics. Where's the sense in that? "... an additional safeguard to protect children from accidentally killing themselves or friends with a gun in their home. That number may not rise to the millions, but saving a few lives or a few hundred or a few thousand is worth a mandatory child safetly lock, IMO." Ok, sell a trigger lock with every firearm. Done, problem solved, end of story. But what lawmakers are pushing for are 'smart guns' that just don't work reliably, are expensive, and are an end-run to reduce the number and types of firearms legally available. If your agenda is just to ban firearms, then have the balls to do so in a straightforward way. "..better background checks at gun shows so those felons you speak of cant purchase weapons at such locations. Will they find underground sources? Probably...but take this one source away." Ok, here's the gun show loophole: If you purchase a firearm from a private individual who is not a dealer, then the laws for personal firearms sales apply. Most states require background checks for handgun transfers, but not long guns. If you are purchasing a firearm from a dealer at a gun show, then the normal laws for purchasing a firearm from any dealer apply, with all background checks. There is no difference between purchasing a firearm from an individual in a gun-show or out in the parking lot. If you 'close the loophole' you are actually just killing gun shows because people won't bother to go through the hassle when they can purchase straight out of the Shotgun News, legally, without the extra requirements. Anybody who wouldn't be subject to a background check at a gun show can purchase a weapon through a private transaction anyways. "...many Americans, including many police and prosecutors, simply dont see the need for average citizens to own assault weapons.. your handguns and sporting weapons should suffice for any need...and banning their production and sale will ultimately limit the supply on the streets." The first part is true, they don't see the need. Thanks to the constitution they don't have to. And again, how is a semi-automatic hunting rifle materially different from a semi-automatic 'assault-rifle'? And if you limit magazine capacity again to 10 rounds, how many lives will that save? Seems to me like you can get a lot done with 10 rounds if you are a criminal. Why not go 2 rounds? "I chose to look at it as common sense approaches to public safety. And so do most Americans." Your 'commen sense' approach completely ignores the real problems and instead aims at weapons that are not typically used to commit crimes ('assault weapons') because they are expensive and can't be easily concealed. They are also the weapons that should be most strongly protected under the constitution as they are the closest to military-type rifles available to the general public. And how is amending the constitution taking away it's flexibility? I fail to see it. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-10-2008 at 01:41 PM..