gun things and the things they do

[rfurtkamp]

and i have still always had problems with the Unaliable Rights.... natural rights? to own firearms?

That's your choice, but the rights are in fact still in place.

we, as a country, have changed many things since our founding. for good reason. making guns harder to get and having harsher punishments is something to discuss.

"Harder to get" is realistically going to require an amendment to fly. The entire onus of federal gun control is predicated on the same shoddy precedent as most of FDR's reforms, the idea that somehow guns (and seeds, and well, anything else tangible) is somehow distinctly covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause simply because it's an item of value.

Prior to '34, there was no federal regulation of guns whatsoever. When the initial attempts to ban them under FDR failed, and the packed Court he had reshuffled to make it so couldn't succeed, they tried to tax everything out of existence. That's why some things have $5 and $200 tax stamps attached to ownership, and manufacturers are licensed on a federal level.

If things like marijuana have devolved back to states (which at this point they effectively seem to have), and jurisprudence is slowly acknowledging some of the foundational failures of the New Deal-era stuff, then the question becomes how long until such things devolve to states as well as far as guns? There's been a movement to have "intrastate firearms" that are exempt from federal law in the last decade to bypass NFA '34, and while I don't want to be the test case, I can't disagree with the sentiment.

...... and it scares the butts off of me people stockpiling hundreds (or did you say thousands?) of guns?

Hundreds, and I know a handful in the four digits. Tens of thousands of rounds of ammo are not uncommon, hell, I used to shoot 3-5k a week average before I got sick (and when it wasn't Obama-era pricing) - and when magazines are now 1/20th or less than what they were during the ten year ban....I know people buying a dozen every time they make another order for something else.

Just for 7.62N HK rifles (G3 pattern), I have 400+ 20 rounders here still for that platform. They were < $1@ in bulk at one point if you bought a thousand or more.

Why? Because after shelling out $120 or more a mag during the ban....never again.

[rfurtkamp]

Furtkamp, your posts fail at disproving any argument that have been put on the table.

And you're straw-manning and misinterpreting what I say. So...wasting my time.

You ignore the data. Invocation of an history you don’t necessarily has a complete understand of as DoS pointed doesn’t change that.

Bullshit. Washington didn't like one rebellion over taxation, but never tried to take guns away. Nor did the other Founders.

You ignore the logics. Yet you said yourself that you own more than the limit because the hoops are easy enough to jump through, justifying DoS’s entire position.

There aren't any limits that I've bypassed. I own regulated and unregulated weapons, all legal.

Or else, you and I would live in the Roman Empire.

At least then you'd have skin in the game. As it stands, you're not a US citizen last I checked.

[D.o.S.]

Making guns harder to get/eliminating gun show loopholes/requiring background checks/increasing the waiting period..... =/= taking guns away?

[rfurtkamp]

Gun show loophole: there isn't one. Dealers at gun shows have to go through them, in every state in the Union. Private party sales are private party sales, whether at a gun show or not, and adhere to state law on the subject.

Requiring background checks: how many times must I be checked for a purchase? What happens when the results are wrong and there's no recourse in getting that fixed? What if I want to loan my property to someone? Et cetera.

Waiting period: Hasn't ever been shown to matter, it's a feel good measure. Most states don't have them.

IF you make a right harder to exercise, you're going to take away some or all of that right for some folks - same reason that voting rights restrictions are fought (rightly so). Every additional hoop, every additional cost effectively disenfranchises part of society from their basic rights.

[D.o.S.]

If most states don't have them how could they ever have been shown to matter or not?

I dont want to get rude or nitpicky in a fairly pleasant conversation but this sort of blithe, double-think dismissal is incredibly annoying.

Anyway, as one potential solution:
Background checks for every purchase and a waiting period of two weeks seems eminently reasonable to me. It's important to remember that infringement and inconvenience are two different things

[D.o.S.]

And, again, I don't have a vested interest in taking away or banning anyone's guns. I think it would be great, but I also recognize that it's never going to happen.

[rfurtkamp]

If most states don't have them how could they ever have been shown to matter or not?


I dont want to get rude or nitpicky in a fairly pleasant conversation but this sort of blithe, double-think dismissal is incredibly annoying.

There's no evidence they do anything. Even the left-leaning Politifact agrees on this one:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... ses-reduc/

This isn't double-think dismissal. I've been studying this subject hardcore for over twenty years, have experience as a retail dealer, procurer of exotic stuff for legal clients, my personal collection, etc,

You're throwing out the usual talking points of "what to do" - and I've seen them for as long as I've watched the subject.

Anyway, as one potential solution:
Background checks for every purchase and a waiting period of two weeks seems eminently reasonable to me. It's important to remember that infringement and inconvenience are two different things

Infringement in a legal sense is simple: "act so as to limit or undermine." So yes, that waiting period is an infringement in a very real sense.

Past that, what happens when I want to get another gun? Do I have to wait *again*, et cetera? Am I somehow unsafe with this new one, but perfectly kosher with my existing blaster?

As far as background checks go, they're neither instant, accurate, nor effective at this point - for those who have inaccurate records, it's a nightmare. I'm delayed EVERY time I buy a gun. So are most folks I've talked to who have had security clearances and the like -and there is no recourse for fixing that. You just have to deal with it, and "accept it."

It used to be inconvenient, now when going out is a literal chore due to my health, having to do so twice...disenfranchises me from that right. At least as it stands, I can private party purchase to avoid that hassle.

Pay it no mind I legally own silencers, NFA weapons, and items that require the full FBI background check for, and had a gun shop with hundreds of guns at a time. Delayed anyway, even when i ran the shop for personal purchases, I kid you not. I cleared the background check to teach the 4H kids 8-18 to shoot handguns, but... I'm sure you get the joke.

I'm not alone. 10% or so of purchasers are in that same boat.

[rfurtkamp]

And, again, I don't have a vested interest in taking away or banning anyone's guns. I think it would be great, but I also recognize that it's never going to happen.

But you have an interest in that, thinking it'd be great and all.

[D.o.S.]

I think we should discourage Stevie ray Vaughn licks from all guitar stores, with extreme prejudice, too. Doesn't mean I think it's feasible. Or worth my time.

[D.o.S.]

Anyway positing one suggestion that seems reasonable to me is hardly worth the effort when talking to a bona-fide firearm fanatic, I guess.

[comesect2.0]

-why do guns even exist
Comesect Lee- Because of penis's.
-Cant see one good reason to justify their existence
Comesect Lee- War. Food. Protection.
Chora Yk -Comesect Lee nah... nice try tho

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF40Q7NCaIE[/youtube]

[rfurtkamp]

Anyway positing one suggestion that seems reasonable to me is hardly worth the effort when talking to a bona-fide firearm fanatic, I guess.

If the solution would solve the issue, I'd definitely consider it.

The problem is you're tossing the standard talking points out - the minute I saw gun show loophole mentioned I cringed, because that's a giant falsehood that is harped on again and again. Same with background check stuff. Are you familiar with the calls to run folks through the background checks and the terrorist watch list at the same time? The no-fly/no buy slogan from the usual suspects in Congress? FBI got caught doing it ...illegally. Since 2004. Hasn't stopped a one. http://law-policy.com/2017/08/fbi-admit ... un-owners/

The problem is propose changes without understanding the complex system of laws already in place (and the persistent failure of same) is to infringe based on what feels good.

[D.o.S.]

Its fair enough to point out I'm using shorthand between meetings but I brought those things up to illustrate that these sorts of things don't constitute "taking guns away" to me.

[comesect2.0]

your too busy to shoot forth your greatest wisdom?

[Disarm D'arcy]

Dude you confuse natural law (which is distinct from positive law) and natural rights, and it’s the basis of your argument... and it’s wrong because of it!

By the way, natural rights ignore nationality. So if you do think the right to bear arms is a natural right, I have a say in it.

By the way it’s not a natural right. What you invoke it as is natural law... (stemming from a source transcendant of constituions) which has no value unless it’s received by positive law And positive law can be changed because it’s relative and social contract and co).

Think about it the next time you want to take a lawyer to court, if you allow the wordplay.

As far as the rest goes, same as I said before, same as DoS said, same as Behndy said... but DoS is now a Uk resident so I guess his views should be dismissed? Behnder’s too. Californians are like way too Cupertino and gluten free to murica. Or is that just reserved to the annoying little French man you can’t argue with because you have no actual clue about the concepts you are using mistakenly?