Yes, those are polls. I am aware that over the past thirty years the percentage of those polled has changed. I do not take issue with that.
What I am asking you is when the VOTERS decided this issue as you claimed.
There is a difference with a distinction. The point is that the American people have never voted on this issue - nor will they since we are not a direct democracy.
:
I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit. l:
However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.
Not pissed at all Di. I have no problem with background checks as long as the records are kept by the dealer and subject only to a subpoena if a crime is suspected using the model sold. The "loophole" isn't really a loophole at all, gun shows are attended by FFL and independent sellers and subject to the same laws pertaining to both, a FFL dealer at a show still must follow all protocol of filling out the federal check form and making the call to the ATF but those selling privately owned arms don't have to do that whether they sell from their home, in the mall parking lot, or at a gun show. Either sale is not legitimate if they feel that the person buying is doing so with the intent to commit a crime.I haven't read past the first page and I'm sure this has boiled down to "guns bad", "no, guns good" arguments... but I'm going to give my opinion anyway, because I'm pushy like that. :mrgreen:
I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit.
However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.
After that, I believe that all weapons up to heavy artillary should be legal to own for someone who has been properly vetted and licensed.
So, having pissed off both sides with my views, I salute and say, "Carry on, folks!" :lol:
The idea of a waiting period is not for those who pass a background check. The waiting period is some lame ass flopped idea that people get angry and go buy a gun and shoot someone. Of course this is unrealistic. The "cooling period" idea has been statistically shown to be irrelevant with 0 effects. Background checks are instant.
I will say that I agree that you should have to wait until your background check is completed (and your fingerprints are confirmed on file with the FBI for concealed carry), but once that is done...if you get a concealed permit you shouldn't have to have a waiting period (and you don't in most states to my knowledge with a concealed license) and you shouldn't have the waiting period if you pass the background check.
I am starting to come around to the idea of gun shows having to abide by gun dealer regulations. The reason is because it is a mass event, and it is essentially a firearms store. Not to mention many of the errors in gun sales occur here...instead of at stores where background checks etc are easy.
I still agree with private sale. It is MY firearm. I should be allowed to sell it without an FFLD. Not to mention the sale of private arms by criminals will not be affected by a law like this. The very nature of their sale is already illegitmate.
State dependent. My purchase took about 30 minutes, it's usually around 20-45 depending on how quickly you can accurately fill out the paperwork and how quickly the ATF can be contacted. Usually it takes longer on weekends as a lot of people are purchasing during off days and the phones get a little backed up. Waiting periods are typically state specific, they basically say the gun is yours but you can't have it until they say so, tends to be between 1-3 weeks. Louisiana doesn't have a waiting period so my property was in had as soon as the ATF issued the ok. New York I think is seven days, Cali takes IIRC two weeks.I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness.
I don't have a problem with a CCW requirement because any idiot can hide a gun, those who do so legally won't take that priviledge lightly and tend to have less gun charges than any catagory. The reason I don't mind CCW is that if a person is concealing with no license and stopped for another crime this gets someone off the street that may have used that weapon in a violent act. It's one of the small percentage of gun laws I actually think is workable and reasonable.My feeling is that if a FULL background check is done at purchase, even if it takes a few days, then that gun belongs to that person and he/she should automatically be allowed to carry either open or concealed.
If a private sale is done correctly with a notary or witness and the numbers are put on a receipt it would still be pretty easy to track provided there is no tampering. If I sold my arms privately I would personally cover all bases just in case, don't really need a dealer for that. Basically if I were questioned I would show the notarized receipt with purchaser, serial #, and an emphatic "not me".Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool.
Here's the thing I don't like about a mandatory report, some people may not realize their guns are stolen until it becomes a questioning issue, there was a movement to force reporting within 24 hours of theft but that leads to further issues such as "How am I supposed to know my weapon was stolen exactly 24 hours ago or less?", "What if it's stolen while I'm away and I can't find out during the window?", "Even though it's a good idea to report a stolen weapon, I don't like ultimatums" things like that.They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.
Years ago, one could support gun owners rights and still lobby for legislation on the subject. That is no longer possible in this current political environment which has taken a hard right turn. For some - and I say some and not all or even a majority - the First Amendment has supplanted the Second Amendment regarding gun rights in that their devotion and love of firearms is far closer to a religious like fervor based on willful belief than anything else. And right from little many are taught it is dangerous and nonproductive to mess with peoples religious beliefs.
Once upon a time, when we had mass killings in which firearms were involved, rational people discussed it and ideas for legislation were introduced and debated. We just saw three young people slaughtered in Chardon, Ohio and instead of spurring national discussion, those who want to do so are charged with using dead children to promote an agenda which is never identified.
There simply is no current environment for rational discussion on this topic.
actually yes, there is. or there was.
The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the various Militia Acts by Congress clearly spell out the framework of The Militia. And The Militia was eventually done away with in 1903, with The Militia Act of 1903, which formalized the National Guard, to take over the responsibilities of the civilian Militia.
Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If it were popular among voters, politicians would openly support it. Notice that hardly any do.
years ago some people actually bought the lies that those who wanted more gun control were actually trying to stop crime rather than either pretending they were tough on criminals or they wanted to hassle honest gun owners
right now there is so much evidence that anyone who claims that additional restrictions that impact honest gun owners are needed for crime control is easily seen as a liar, dishonest or a complete moron
It is talk like that which poisons any true discussion and keeps decent and moderate people away from the extremists who tend to dominate those type of discussions with their all or nothing black or white view of the issue. People quickly learn that arguing with a religious zealot is a dead end street that is very unrewarding.
I looked at the sites you listed (one wouldn't come up). Sorry, I'm an engineer so I have a hard time with stuff that is not quantitative. In my one experience with having someone point a loaded gun at me after I caught him doing a property crime to our home, my having a gun would have resulted in a very unfortunate outcome. I probably would have ended up in jail for a long time. I had to talk to him (I was actually looking for an opportunity to kill him with his own gun.) This gave the police time to arrive and catch him pointing the gun at me. There were no police, then, in an instant, he had 3 of them pointing their pistols at him in a very coordinated response to a phone call. He went to jail. I actually met him about 2 years later at the counter of an auto parts store a few years later. He was very contrite.
I haven't read past the first page and I'm sure this has boiled down to "guns bad", "no, guns good" arguments... but I'm going to give my opinion anyway, because I'm pushy like that. :mrgreen:
I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit.
However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.
There was a federally regulated militia (the one of which you speak), state regulated miltias and citizen regulated militias (like the ones we have around today).
I have told people before because of the way I was trained I don't pull if I'm not ready to use, once you see my hand motion it's too late, I've made my decision.I give you a study that actually quantifies. You explain that as an engineer you don't like stuff that isn't quantifiable, which you seem to suggest includes said study. Then you argue from a non-quantifiable stance....
you were lucky, frankly, that the guy was not actually willing to kill you. had he been so, then you not being armed would have meant that the police would have arrived far too late for you or (had they been there) potentially your family.
You've gotta love liberal logic: "We know you have the right and it's not to be infringed, but we want to talk about infringing a little to make us feel safer, that you don't want to give us the attention we crave means you are "poisoning the well". So let's talk about compromise even though we offer nothing to make up for you giving up your rights, you're the one being unreasonable and crazy".the religious zealots are the idiots who engage in a faith based idiocy that those who disobey laws against robbery or murder are somehow going to obey gun laws
You've gotta love liberal logic: "We know you have the right and it's not to be infringed, but we want to talk about infringing a little to make us feel safer, that you don't want to give us the attention we crave means you are "poisoning the well". So let's talk about compromise even though we offer nothing to make up for you giving up your rights, you're the one being unreasonable and crazy".
No one who understands this subject believes that those who want more gun laws have any motivation other than hassling gun owners
why do hysterical gun haters lie like rugs on these threads and pretend they can win arguments by engaging in homoerotic diversions which none of the pro-rights posters ever mention?
Projection.
The "citizen Militias" are nothing more than a bunch of paranoid nuts petting their long, hard weapons.
the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and the various Militia Acts, discuss the only legal Militia that has ever existed in the USA. The "citizen Militias" are nothing more than a bunch of paranoid nuts petting their long, hard weapons.
that's a great way to disregard the beliefs of those you disagree with: simply tell yourself again & again, that they just care about hassling honest gun owners, and really don't give a **** about reducing crime and the number of innocent deaths in our country.
not at all - the Founders were quite clear (as I have pointed out) that the militia is considered a "bottom up" organization that flows from the people (the whole people except for a few public officials), not a top-down organization that requires the blessing of government. That would rather defeat one of it's chief purposes.
we absolutely do care deeply about those things. That is why we want as many law abiding people as possible to be responsibly armed.
It is not about "hassling" gun owners, it is about applying restrictions on people who seek to legally own guns who have that right, according to the second amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS.that's a great way to disregard the beliefs of those you disagree with: simply tell yourself again & again, that they just care about hassling honest gun owners, and really don't give a **** about reducing crime and the number of innocent deaths in our country.
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?