Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:We both want to protect our families.  We just want to go about it very different ways.  You want to do it by having a gun (though that doesn't help much when your children aren't on your homestead).  


I want to do it by limiting the ability for bad guys to get guns.  

 

 

Like the bad guys are REALLY going to go in to a gun store, fill out all those pesky forms, go through an invasive Background check and wait 3 friggin days to get a gun



 

Quote:I guess we'll disagree, which brings me back to amicable divorce.

Some founders believed the document should thrown out and rewritten from time to time but at a minimum should be modified as to meet the needs of future states of society. Just food for thought

Quote:Some founders believed the document should thrown out and rewritten from time to time but at a minimum should be modified as to meet the needs of future states of society. Just food for thought

Agreed, the composition of the Union should not be beyond adjustment but our rights are correctly inalienable regardless of our form of government

Quote:That's just political talk, it's an exaggeration, while Obama is certainly more left leaning then most like he isn't tyrannical like the rest of the world has seen. America has never suffered under a ruler that can not be removed, the likes of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong, Lenin, Hussein, the elected dictator if you will.

 

You could argue the last few presidents have each progressively acted more and more in dictatorial manors, but the reason we've never had a dictator is those pesky 2nd Amendment radicals people love to demonize.

I just don't think it's fair to say people that want to have stricter laws in place are demonizing the 2nd Amendment. I have never nor would ever advocate for the outright banning of guns. Were that even practical it's just not American at heart. What I do not get is the vehement opposition to even discussion of the matter.

 

If I can be hyperbolic for a moment. You say no restrictions on weapons. Is it just guns? What about explosives? Say bombs. And if ever one should have the right to those weapons, what gives us the right to attempt to stop other nations from obtaining them? This is the perspective I have and why I don't understand the inclination to not even discuss the matter.

Quote:Some founders believed the document should thrown out and rewritten from time to time but at a minimum should be modified as to meet the needs of future states of society. Just food for thought

 

If we go back to the minimal role of government during those time's I'm all for throwing it out and rewriting it ever 20 years.

Quote:You know, if criminals know they're being taped it influences their behavior too.

This is a good point (Though I'm not sure all "criminals" are aware the cops are wearing body cameras), but again the drop in complaints and shootings by cops is huge. I think my point is still valid.

Quote:If we go back to the minimal role of government during those time's I'm all for throwing it out and rewriting it ever 20 years.

Well sure you would if you got YOUR way in ever thing  :teehee: j/k

Quote:This is a good point (Though I'm not sure all "criminals" are aware the cops are wearing body cameras), but again the drop in complaints and shootings by cops is huge. I think my point is still valid.

I agree with you and am all for cameras on cops. They tend to make everyone more polite (except Britt McHenry I guess).

Quote:If you could prove to me that laws would change bad guys getting guns I'd change my stance. 

Well that's the thing isn't it.  You have to come up with laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.


The old "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" saying is fair, but a tad inaccurate.  First, most people don't want to outright ban guns.  Australia for example doesn't outlaw guns.  People own them for various reasons in Australia.  I can understand not wanting UK Gun laws.  They go a bit far, and it'd never go over well here.


You're never going to completely eliminate bad guys having guns.  That's why I'm not for outlawing them!  But we need to make it harder for bad guys to get guns.  John Allen Muhammed bought his sniper rifle in a gun store.  He would have failed the background check, and if the gun store complied, they wouldn't have sold him that rifle.  Now, you can argue that he'd have bought it on the black market.  And that's certainly possible.  I'm not going to argue that it isn't.


The idea however is -- it won't be as easy.  Getting access to the black market isn't always so easy.  And it's often more expensive.  People say that criminals don't follow laws.  But that's not precisely true.  They do follow laws.  They just don't follow all of them.  For that matter many criminals don't plan on becoming criminals.  They don't think to themselves "You know what, I think I'm going to be a criminal."  When getting a gun is easy for them, they're going to make that choice.  And how about the black market's ability to get arms to sell?  If we make that harder, the guns will be even more expensive.


And then you have the mental health aspect of it all.  Should Adam Lanza's mother have kept a gun in her house, when her son had mental problems?  Maybe.  But she should have at the very least kept it locked safely away from him.  


What we need are laws that actually protect the innocent people, and make it harder for bad guys to get guns.  We can't come up with laws that would help, without people actively talking about ways to reduce gun violence.  


I don't want to take guns away from you.  You're not a criminal, and I presume you never plan on using them unless in defense of yourself, your family, or your property.  I want to make it harder for the bad guys to get them.  I want to make it harder for mentally ill people to get a hold of them.  Because there are people who shouldn't have guns.  And those aren't the law abiding citizens like you.  They're the ones who don't know the first thing about gun safety. 

Quote:Well that's the thing isn't it.  You have to come up with laws that would help keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.


The old "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" saying is fair, but a tad inaccurate.  First, most people don't want to outright ban guns.  Australia for example doesn't outlaw guns.  People own them for various reasons in Australia.  I can understand not wanting UK Gun laws.  They go a bit far, and it'd never go over well here.


You're never going to completely eliminate bad guys having guns.  That's why I'm not for outlawing them!  But we need to make it harder for bad guys to get guns.  John Allen Muhammed bought his sniper rifle in a gun store.  He would have failed the background check, and if the gun store complied, they wouldn't have sold him that rifle.  Now, you can argue that he'd have bought it on the black market.  And that's certainly possible.  I'm not going to argue that it isn't.


The idea however is -- it won't be as easy.  Getting access to the black market isn't always so easy.  And it's often more expensive.  People say that criminals don't follow laws.  But that's not precisely true.  They do follow laws.  They just don't follow all of them.  For that matter many criminals don't plan on becoming criminals.  They don't think to themselves "You know what, I think I'm going to be a criminal."  When getting a gun is easy for them, they're going to make that choice.  And how about the black market's ability to get arms to sell?  If we make that harder, the guns will be even more expensive.


And then you have the mental health aspect of it all.  Should Adam Lanza's mother have kept a gun in her house, when her son had mental problems?  Maybe.  But she should have at the very least kept it locked safely away from him.  


What we need are laws that actually protect the innocent people, and make it harder for bad guys to get guns.  We can't come up with laws that would help, without people actively talking about ways to reduce gun violence.  


I don't want to take guns away from you.  You're not a criminal, and I presume you never plan on using them unless in defense of yourself, your family, or your property.  I want to make it harder for the bad guys to get them.  I want to make it harder for mentally ill people to get a hold of them.  Because there are people who shouldn't have guns.  And those aren't the law abiding citizens like you.  They're the ones who don't know the first thing about gun safety. 

Sure but that's kind of the debate right? How exactly do you make it harder for them to get them? As all for stricter control laws as I am I don't think anyone has proposed anything that reasonable in accomplishing this. 

Quote:I just don't think it's fair to say people that want to have stricter laws in place are demonizing the 2nd Amendment. I have never nor would ever advocate for the outright banning of guns. Were that even practical it's just not American at heart. What I do not get is the vehement opposition to even discussion of the matter.


If I can be hyperbolic for a moment. You say no restrictions on weapons. Is it just guns? What about explosives? Say bombs. And if ever one should have the right to those weapons, what gives us the right to attempt to stop other nations from obtaining them? This is the perspective I have and why I don't understand the inclination to not even discuss the matter.

Because every time the left wants a conversation about something it gets worse. We've talked about gun restrictions for a century now and more gun laws are repeatedly proven to equal more crime. But its always "we need to do more" with those people; more laws, more money, more programs. And all it does is make things worse.

Quote:Because every time the left wants a conversation about something it gets worse. We've talked about gun restrictions for a century now and more gun laws are repeatedly proven to equal more crime. But its always "we need to do more" with those people; more laws, more money, more programs. And all it does is make things worse.

What get's worse exactly? 

 

What laws have proven to equal more crime?

Quote:What get's worse exactly? 

 

What laws have proven to equal more crime?

 

 

The gun ban in DC and Chicago produced some of the most violent cities in the US. Once the courts overturned those bans, crime fell. Just like when Fl became a concealed carry state, crime dropped considerably.

Quote:The gun ban in DC and Chicago produced some of the most violent cities in the US. Once the courts overturned those bans, crime fell. Just like when Fl became a concealed carry state, crime dropped considerably.

Yep, what he said.

Quote:I just don't think it's fair to say people that want to have stricter laws in place are demonizing the 2nd Amendment. I have never nor would ever advocate for the outright banning of guns. Were that even practical it's just not American at heart. What I do not get is the vehement opposition to even discussion of the matter.

 

If I can be hyperbolic for a moment. You say no restrictions on weapons. Is it just guns? What about explosives? Say bombs. And if ever one should have the right to those weapons, what gives us the right to attempt to stop other nations from obtaining them? This is the perspective I have and why I don't understand the inclination to not even discuss the matter.

 

For the sake of discussion I try and limit the topic to guns, should people own tanks, jets, bombs, and laser guided missiles gets off into fantasy land pretty quick. The problem with gun control or what is often called gun control is the intent. The very politicians that support it have come out and openly stated they DO wish to eventually see an outright confiscation and elimination of private ownership.

 

I'm open to a discussion but the discussion is always one of the following:

 

1. Close the gun show loophole

2. Ban Assault Weapons (Now called military weapons)

3. More Background checks

4. All weapons should be registered

 

Here's the counter to each of them,

 

1.) The "gun show loophole" isn't a loophole it's a transaction between private individuals. For example if I purchase a gun I have to submit to a background check performed by the ATF when I buy this new gun from the gun store. Now I own this gun, if I'm going to sell it to my neighbor it's unlawful for him to purchase the gun if he is a felon or is legally prohibited from owning a firearm. However there is absolutely no reasonable way for me to verify this so it's not illegal for me to sell him that gun if I don't know. At a gun show it's a trade show, those are private individuals who have already passed the background check to own those guns, it's not companies selling new guns. They in turn are selling the guns to other private owners in good faith that they are legally able to own a firearm. So there's no loophole it's just a transaction between private individuals.

 

2.) Assault weapons are already banned, unless you pay for a very expensive license that requires you to allow federal inspections from the ATF unannounced called an FFL3. The standard AR15 that looks like the "Military" grade weapon is a semi-automatic meaning one trigger pull one bullet fired. Now there is literally no difference between your standard civilian AR15 and the normal hunting rifle other than it looks fancy and holds a bigger magazine. So to ban what is called an Assault weapon is really an attempt to ban all magazine feed rifles (90%) of them. You'd be left with single loaded bolt action rifles.

 

3.) The Background check is performed by the ATF already it takes 3 days from the date of the background to take ownership of a handgun. I'm not sure how much more of a background check can be performed?

 

4.) Registration - making a list of all the people that own firearms and which firearms they own is such a colossally bad idea I could write 100 pages on it. I'll sum it up with a simple reality, it has ALWAYS lead to confiscation.

 

But I'm open to what new ideas for gun control I've missed, or what ideas for gun control that we are not already implementing should be implemented. Keep in mind you can write all the laws you want doesn't mean the criminals are going to disarm.

Quote:Yep, what he said.

 

Quote:The gun ban in DC and Chicago produced some of the most violent cities in the US. Once the courts overturned those bans, crime fell. Just like when Fl became a concealed carry state, crime dropped considerably.

That's why I asked I don't know. Do two cities make a clear equivalency between the two? Are they the only two cities with strict gun bans? On top of that, I already said I'm not calling for gun bans and don't agree with those that are. 

Quote:That's why I asked I don't know. Do two cities make a clear equivalency between the two? Are they the only two cities with strict gun bans? On top of that, I already said I'm not calling for gun bans and don't agree with those that are.

You should check out John Lott's studies in More Guns, Less Crime. It's a very comprehensive and definitive work on the topic.

Quote:For the sake of discussion I try and limit the topic to guns, should people own tanks, jets, bombs, and laser guided missiles gets off into fantasy land pretty quick. The problem with gun control or what is often called gun control is the intent. The very politicians that support it have come out and openly stated they DO wish to eventually see an outright confiscation and elimination of private ownership.

 

I'm open to a discussion but the discussion is always one of the following:

 

1. Close the gun show loophole

2. Ban Assault Weapons (Now called military weapons)

3. More Background checks

4. All weapons should be registered

 

Here's the counter to each of them,

 

1.) The "gun show loophole" isn't a loophole it's a transaction between private individuals. For example if I purchase a gun I have to submit to a background check performed by the ATF when I buy this new gun from the gun store. Now I own this gun, if I'm going to sell it to my neighbor it's unlawful for him to purchase the gun if he is a felon or is legally prohibited from owning a firearm. However there is absolutely no reasonable way for me to verify this so it's not illegal for me to sell him that gun if I don't know. At a gun show it's a trade show, those are private individuals who have already passed the background check to own those guns, it's not companies selling new guns. They in turn are selling the guns to other private owners in good faith that they are legally able to own a firearm. So there's no loophole it's just a transaction between private individuals.

 

That's still a loophole. They are are merchants that pay a fee. You may see them as individuals and some may be but plenty of them are merchants and are utilizing a loophole. And even if it wasn't that's still a problem. Can't criminals just roll up in there and buy whatever they want? That seems like something lawful gun owners should be concerned about


 

2.) Assault weapons are already banned, unless you pay for a very expensive license that requires you to allow federal inspections from the ATF unannounced called an FFL3. The standard AR15 that looks like the "Military" grade weapon is a semi-automatic meaning one trigger pull one bullet fired. Now there is literally no difference between your standard civilian AR15 and the normal hunting rifle other than it looks fancy and holds a bigger magazine. So to ban what is called an Assault weapon is really an attempt to ban all magazine feed rifles (90%) of them. You'd be left with single loaded bolt action rifles.

Agreed, but bolt action is fun  :thumbsup: 

3.) The Background check is performed by the ATF already it takes 3 days from the date of the background to take ownership of a handgun. I'm not sure how much more of a background check can be performed?

I know nothing about background check nor how extensive they are.

4.) Registration - making a list of all the people that own firearms and which firearms they own is such a colossally bad idea I could write 100 pages on it. I'll sum it up with a simple reality, it has ALWAYS lead to confiscation.

Is this any different to have a license to own a gun? The only difference is it shows were all legally purchased guns are... I can see concerns with this though let's be honest, the NSA already knows every gun you own buddy. But that's a topic for another thread. 

But I'm open to what new ideas for gun control I've missed, or what ideas for gun control that we are not already implementing should be implemented. Keep in mind you can write all the laws you want doesn't mean the criminals are going to disarm.

Response above in blue.

 

I don't have the answers nor do I claim to. Maybe it's not as a big of a deal for either side? Maybe there is enough control and maybe there is not? My only argument was that to have no restriction on weapons is just plain silly in a modern society. Limiting type of weapons available to the general public just seems reasonable to me. 

Quote:You should check out John Lott's studies in More Guns, Less Crime. It's a very comprehensive and definitive work on the topic.

I'll look into that. 

 

My point though was that does it really equal causation? There are very few guns in Portland and also pretty low crime. 

Big Fan of John Lott's work, he has probably written more about this subject than anyone else

 

And here's an example of bad gun laws right off the bat, we know NJ has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation so.........

 

 


NJ: Armed Robber's last words "I thought you could not own a gun in New Jersey"
 
<i>I do not know if we can verify this or not.  It is one of those stories that "should be true" whether it is or not.</i>


New Jersey is notorious for having some of the strictest gun regulations in the nation. The robber apparently thought that meant there was no legal way for his would-be victims to arm themselves.


According to Guns.buzz, Mark Robinson’s last words inside the New Neighborhood Deli Supermarket were “I thought you couldn’t own a gun in New Jersey.”