You’ll take my sarcasm when you pry it from my cold, dead smirk.
My .308 is not an assault rifle firing an intermediate sized cartridge. It is a main battle rifle (MBR).
1 Like
Violent felons with firearms is inherently dangerous, and should be illegal. Doesn’t have anything to do with my hypothetical guns at home.
Okay. So what do you think of requiring that all guns be registered? And that after a certain phase-in period, any that then show up as unregistered are immediately confiscated?
Yes, criminals could still get guns outside the bounds of such rules, but doing so would be a lot harder and more expensive, and thus, a lot less common.
1 Like
Well, I live in Colorado, where a law requiring background checks for ALL transfers are required… BAD IDEA…
First of all, we had some really bad fires here last summer where over 200 homes were lost. If somebody was homeless and gave the guns to a friend or relative to hold for them since they have to home to store their firearms, they are now a felon – unless they find a transfer dealer (more on this later) and run a $10 background check every 30 days. This is a fun bit of detail to have to take care of when your home is now a pile of ashes and you are living out of a hotel and trying to pull your life back together.
My state is also home to several military bases. If a soldier is deployed and leaves his guns with his live-in fiancee, he is a criminal, unless he gets a background check for her every 30 days. Way to support our soldiers!
Lastly, good luck finding a “transfer dealer” to handle transfers. The BATF is known to yank licenses for the simplest things: like putting “Y” instead of “yes” on a form, or exchanging “FL” for “Florida.” Simply stated, running a transfer carries a small amount of risk for not profit. So simply finding a dealer to do the transfer can be difficult. Regular stores (gun shops, sporting goods shops, pawn shops) simply, as a general rule, will NOT perform this service.
Also, if my friend breaks his hunting rifle and want to borrow mine, I am a felon if I loan it to him… even though he has a concealed permit and plenty of other firearms. Great law.
Now, if you really want this sort of thing to work, try having the government setting up a web site where anybody can type in their credentials (social security, drivers license, etc), and have the web site give an immediate “green” or “red” on whether that person can own a firearm. It should be immediate and free. Then, requiring a check for all transfers might be feasible. Until then, it is a bad idea.
There is NO SUCH THING as a semi-automatic assault rifle. If it is an “assault rifle” then it is not semi-automatic. If it is semi-automatic, then it is not an assault rifle. Feel free to look up the definition of “assault rifle” on Wikipedia – very first line.
This means that this guy did NOT have an assault rifle. A true assault rifle is illegal for ME, and honest citizen to own. Well, that is almost true. There are some true assault rifles that were grandfathered in before select-fire became illegal, but those rifles go for at least $20,000 or so. So any ones that are legal for me to own are too expensive for me to ever afford.
Now now, don’t let one bad apple tarnish the image of the entire White Supremacist movement!
3 Likes
Take a look at how Canada’s long gun registry worked out for an example. Long story short: it didn’t work and they killed it.
The problem with the web site is that it imposes a record-keeping requirement on the individual seller. The seller must keep a record of the background check to prove that he or she did it and that it came back green. If the seller loses the record, he or she will be presumed guilty. A whole lot of innocent people will become criminals by default. The advantage of doing background checks through FFLs is that they already have recordkeeping requirements and are set up to comply with them. All the law has to do is mandate that FFLs perform private-party transfer background checks and allow them to charge for it. I don’t see why an FFL running a 4473 for a private party would be any different risk for them compared to selling a gun out of inventory. Let them charge $25 or something and I think they’ll be happy to do it.
Most rampagers aren’t career criminals. In fact they’re law abiding gun owners until they snap.
I would add that even if I grant a justification for limiting pseudoephedrine sales, the limit itself is too low. 7.2 g/month is what 1 person taking the cold medicine for a month would need. I don’t know about you, but it is not unusual for my colds (or flu) to last 7-10 days, sometimes 2 weeks. So, why can’t a mother of 3 buy enough of her favorite cold medicine for the whole family (since family members tend to catch sicknesses from each other)?
Because the ATF has such a good track record with the amount of power they already have, amirite?
And since you’re such a stickler for terminology, you’ll kindly note that I never once used the term “semi-automatic assault rifle,” nor did I opine on the specific weapons involved in this particular case. So take a chill pill.
1 Like
I see you quickly ran off…
All this illegal NSA spying and stuff like this goes unnoticed? How come this isn’t a bigger story, imagine the coverage if he was Muslim?
But fox news told me that the current gun control systems are working!!
You made your bed, now drown in blood in it.
About 1% of USians regularly use marijuana making them felons. Very few of these individuals will go on to commit murder. “Felon commits felonies” is not quite as strong an argument as you seem to think.
Supply and demand. Decrease the supply while holding demand constant and price will go up. Price goes up while demand stays constant means fewer units will be sold.
Sure you can make guns in your garage. They will be on average less reliable and durable than factory-made ones and your throughput compared to a factory will be laughable.
That’s why statements like “the laws don’t seem to be stopping anyone” are laughable. Decreasing the number of guns available thus increasing the price of the guns that are available is obviously going to stop at least some people. In other words, it stops someone. Not everyone, but since eliminating gun crime entirely is a completely unrealistic goal that’s probably not what people promoting gun control have in mind.
Let’s rephrase the drunk driving example. It’s illegal for me to stockpile sarin gas in my home. Do you think it should be legal instead?
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
