Obama restricts gun rights of "hobbyists"

[MeltingTeeth]

Get prepared for more paperwork:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/obama-executive-action-on-guns-to-require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html

[baldgye]

HOW DARE HE!
Any lunatic should be legally allowed to buy guns!

[keshley]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

[R1N3]

HOW DARE HE!
Any lunatic should be legally allowed to buy guns!

LMAO

[Sinanju]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows.  Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.

The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check?  Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.   *Slight edit: California requires this.

Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.

By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters.  I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.

[baldgye]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows.  Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.

The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check?  Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.   *Slight edit: California requires this.

Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.

By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters.  I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.

True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!

[nubbinator]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

Exactly.  I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change. 

Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners.  If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.

[digi]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

Exactly.  I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change. 

Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners.  If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.

 

As an avid hunter and owner of firearms I agree with this.

Too many idiots out there, responsible people shouldn't need to worry if you're not doing anything wrong.

[Steezus]

I'm Pro Gun myself but I'm all for a more detailed background check. In my state I can walk into ****'s Sporting Goods, hand them my ID, wait 2-3 minutes for them to check it, and then I can walk out with a rifle. Hell I honestly wouldn't mind random visits from the Government to ensure that the guns are safely stored and within your own possession. I chose this topic for my senior topic and ended up writing a 10 page research paper on it, not saying that makes my voice any louder than others but just that I enjoy reading into the subject.

[whmeltonjr]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

Exactly.  I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change. 

Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners.  If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.

Years ago when I got my CHL, a lady in my class had never even shot a gun before that day. She missed the target completely on all rounds she fired.

The gun show loophole is a tough one. I don't agree with the way it is being done, but I understand the reasoning on it.

[Sinanju]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows.  Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.

The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check?  Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.   *Slight edit: California requires this.

Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.

By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters.  I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.

True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!

Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms.  Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.

Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/

Nubb, not to play devil's advocate here, but you are comparing a right and a privilege (although that could be argued).  I could also argue that you only need to have training, a permit, a test, and insurance to drive on public roads. Don't need them on private property (although might not really be beneficial).  Problem with that thinking is effecting the poor or people who live farther away from one of these training areas.

That being said. I don't see any problem in more thorough background checks. In fact, I'd argue the majority of people have no problems with that. It seems that usually there is more to a bill than just increasing that aspect of firearm laws.

Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.

[Bromono]

I am in the military, own guns, live in texas, the whole shibang.

I agree with this. It amazes me how easily I have bought my guns. 0 Background checks and I am no way tied to my weapons at all.

If it is easy for me, it is easy for others as well.

All these conspiracy theorist think Obama is trying to disarm America so he can take over it.

1st. I don't care how many guns you own or how well trained you are in black ops 2. You wouldn't stop the government.

2nd. the 1st will never happen.

3rd. The right to bare arms was made when guns took minutes to reload one round. As guns have changed (for better and worse) so should regulations. I don't understand why people feel like they can buy/sell guns and have no responsibility as to what happens with that gun.

I feel like everyone should have a background check and be licensed before they can buy a gun, and all guns serial numbers need to be tied to the owner. that way if their gun was used in a crime the gun can be traced back. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[baldgye]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows.  Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.

The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check?  Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.   *Slight edit: California requires this.

Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.

By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters.  I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.

True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!

Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms.  Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.

Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/

...yeah, tbf everyone has around 2-3 suppressors over here. I've got 6 and I don't even own a gun.

Though I don't see a reason for that tax to be removed, as dosn't it essentially act as a tax on large(r) caliber weapons? You want a bigger louder gun, you have to pay more tax, or you loose your hearing, why is that a bad thing? If you can't or struggle to justify the cost of an extra $200 I worry about the storage you (or anyone else) would have for such a weapon...

[jbondeson]

I'm not pro or anti gun^[1] but lord do I hate the second amendment! It's used to justify all sorts of crazy notions that have lead to tens of thousands of deaths in the US. For example, a handgun is an absolutely terrible "home defense" weapon^[2], but is awesome for murdering people!

I say allow all weapons that were available at the drafting of the second amendment^[3] to be ownable without a license, but everything else that has been invented since requires a test and a license, just like we do for driving.


[1] I've used guns of all types and enjoy skeet shooting, but don't hunt
[2] A 9mm will go through a number of pieces of drywall and still be deadly to the family you're supposedly protecting
[3] Muzzle loaders are still used in hunting.

[Michael]

Relevant:
http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-firearm-background-checks-work-52121

[jerue]

Get prepared for more paperwork:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/05/obama-executive-action-on-guns-to-require-background-checks-for-more-sales.html

LAW

Because PAPERWORK is DRAMATIC.

Please someone get this reference

[demik]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows.  Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.

The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check?  Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.   *Slight edit: California requires this.

Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.

By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters.  I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.

True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!

Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms.  Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.

Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/

Nubb, not to play devil's advocate here, but you are comparing a right and a privilege (although that could be argued).  I could also argue that you only need to have training, a permit, a test, and insurance to drive on public roads. Don't need them on private property (although might not really be beneficial).  Problem with that thinking is effecting the poor or people who live farther away from one of these training areas.

That being said. I don't see any problem in more thorough background checks. In fact, I'd argue the majority of people have no problems with that. It seems that usually there is more to a bill than just increasing that aspect of firearm laws.

Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.

You're arguing with an idiot. Don't waste your time. 99% of the time he has no idea what the **** he's talking about.

[Tym]

...yeah, tbf everyone has around 2-3 suppressors over here. I've got 6 and I don't even own a gun.

Though I don't see a reason for that tax to be removed, as dosn't it essentially act as a tax on large(r) caliber weapons? You want a bigger louder gun, you have to pay more tax, or you loose your hearing, why is that a bad thing? If you can't or struggle to justify the cost of an extra $200 I worry about the storage you (or anyone else) would have for such a weapon...

 )

[billnye]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

Exactly.  I'm pro gun and own guns, but closing the gun show sale loophole is a very sensible gun law change. 

Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that all new gun owners should be mandated to undergo firearm safety training and familiarization training on a range and established gun owners should undergo a brief safety course (even if just online) every 5-10 years for gun owners.  If you have to have training and a learner's permit, a test, and insurance to drive, it only makes sense for something equally dangerous to have safety requirements in place for you to buy it.

Well said, I agree with this.

[Firebolt1914]

As long as I can buy an SKS in the future I'm ok

[baldgye]

To be fair, the gun show loophole is a pretty big one.

To put it in perspective, my job requires a pretty decent background check, and I just type on a keyboard all day. But I could go to a gun show and pick up a gun with little to no hassle. Doesn't exactly seem balanced.

All stores and licensed dealers are required to conduct a background check anywhere, even at gun shows.  Same for online. All those online dealers ship it to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) and go through a background check.

The usual gunshow loophole that I hear talked about is nothing more than me selling my personal property (eg firearm) to someone at a gun show. This can take place at a gun store, at my house, etc. There is no required background check for personal sales. The problem occurs, which I never hear any gun control advocates talk about is how to safely allow individuals to conduct a background check?  Most of them have been that you would go to an FFL and conduct a background check there. Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.   *Slight edit: California requires this.

Whats the perfect solution? I don't know, but I never hear anyone even come close to it. Usually all feel-good legislation thinking with their emotions.

By the way. Pissing me off when people say we need to "compromise" on guns. Compromise means a give and take. It seems that it is only ever a take. You want stricter background checks? Absolutely, and in exchange how about we remove the $200 tax stamp off of suppressors and SBRs for starters.  I'm not saying remove them from the NFA, but that tax stamp is pretty stupid in my opinion.

True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!

Nice strawman. Yes, in arguing for a $200 tax stamp to be removed, is clearly the same thing as removing all regulations entirely from firearms.  Not like it reduces hearing loss or anything.

Like I stated, keeping the suppressor under the National Firearms Act and have all the regulations adhere to it as normal. Just not the $200 fee whenever you buy it. I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that suppressors are much more common place in the UK than in the US. http://www.soundmoderators.co.uk/

Nubb, not to play devil's advocate here, but you are comparing a right and a privilege (although that could be argued).  I could also argue that you only need to have training, a permit, a test, and insurance to drive on public roads. Don't need them on private property (although might not really be beneficial).  Problem with that thinking is effecting the poor or people who live farther away from one of these training areas.

That being said. I don't see any problem in more thorough background checks. In fact, I'd argue the majority of people have no problems with that. It seems that usually there is more to a bill than just increasing that aspect of firearm laws.

Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.

You're arguing with an idiot. Don't waste your time. 99% of the time he has no idea what the **** he's talking about.

wow so rude

[Steezus]

Steezus, that 4th amendment thing might get in the way of that government checks thing.

All I said is that I wouldn't mind if they did that, not that it should happen...

[Air tree]

My ultra far right uncle in law says that people should give obama a choice; If he continues to destroy the 2nd amendment and try to disarm the American public we kill his "Old lady and kids" as a means of threat.


Pls halp.

[Michael]

My ultra far right uncle in law says that people should give obama a choice; If he continues to destroy the 2nd amendment and try to disarm the American public we kill his "Old lady and kids" as a means of threat.


Pls halp.

'OBAMA AINT TAKIN' MAH GUNS!!! YEEEE HAWWWW!!!!'

[Fire Brand]

3rd. The right to bare arms was made when guns took minutes to reload one round. As guns have changed (for better and worse) so should regulations.

This is the correct thing, just amend the amendment to say no-one can have guns, you changed it before so many time why do you all get hung up and up in arms (Pun intended laugh please) on that part, you kooky Americans and your guns

Like its a Amendment put something nice in like every third Sunday is ice cream day, that why you only get mass brain freeze not shootings.

TLDR: its a amendment, amend your gun problem.

[Connly33]

I'm pro gun rights, and pro gun control. I'd say i'm more of a hobbyist, though it is nice to have a firearm for protection. I'm working on getting my first handgun that is suitable for concealed carry, but to be honest i'm glad loopholes like this are being closed, i dont mind going through a little extra paperwork if it really does mean that less individuals that are not in a position to own firearms can get there hands on them.

But that's my opinion and i dont hate on anyone with anti gun or anti gun control views, but personally i stand more in the middle on my views.

But what i cant stand is the " guns are only for killing " mindset, to me it is a tool, arguably a multipurpose tool, i'm sure if i was intent on killing someone my Func KB 460 with its 1/4 in steel top plate could easily help me do so ( As proved by linus of linus tech tips in one of the advert's they did for Func)

[jbondeson]

I'm pro gun rights, and pro gun control. I'd say i'm more of a hobbyist, though it is nice to have a firearm for protection. I'm working on getting my first handgun that is suitable for concealed carry, but to be honest i'm glad loopholes like this are being closed, i dont mind going through a little extra paperwork if it really does mean that less individuals that are not in a position to own firearms can get there hands on them.

But that's my opinion and i dont hate on anyone with anti gun or anti gun control views, but personally i stand more in the middle on my views.

But what i cant stand is the " guns are only for killing " mindset, to me it is a tool, arguably a multipurpose tool, i'm sure if i was intent on killing someone my Func KB 460 with its 1/4 in steel top plate could easily help me do so ( As proved by linus of linus tech tips in one of the advert's they did for Func)

Ok, I'm going to pick on a couple of your statements here (but not on you, promise )

Let's start backwards:

RE: Guns are tools - Guns have three uses: 1) recreation, 2) threat of violence (defensive and offensive), and 3) Attempting to or killing living things (hunting animals or people). None of those is really a tool; the first has no practical purpose, and the next two operate on the same principle: guns are made to put holes in squishy things that should not have them.

And I doubt you could massacre a half dozen people from several hundred yards with your Func...

RE: Protection - The only reason you want a gun for protection is because there are so many other guns out there. So, yeah there's kinda another solution that doesn't involve having yet another gun out there (not to mention that many home gun fatalities involve the gun that's already in the house).

RE: Conceal Carry - This is something that legitimately chaps my hide. There is exactly zero reason non-law enforcement personnel should be allowed to be packing heat in public. Nearly every situation you can cook up involves another gun (see above) or the carrier simply making the situation worse due to a lack of training.

* jbondeson takes a deep breath

[fohat.digs]

Hard not to look at it this way:

[digi]

I'm anti gun

FTFY

[jd29]

True a $200 tax on a suppressor is insane. Guns are merely a tool for murdering other living things, why should they be taxed and forced behind arbitrary 'back ground checks', all that does is force crime to go to totally uncontrollable and unpolicable black markets which police don't have the time to investigate and stop because of bi-annual shoot shootings that happen nation wide.
It's not fair that the Government (of all people or bodies) should restrict our access to these tools, what next TAXING SPOONS?!

So inflammatory! This is not how you argue with a person.

...but in case you don't know, "murder" means the killing of a human by another human, not just any living thing. Like if you died from a bacterial infection (or maybe a tiger), you wouldn't say that the bacteria murdered you, and vice versa.

[jdcarpe]

On a couple occasions in my life, I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While no longer an active duty member of the military, nor an active law enforcement officer, I consider the oath I swore to remain in effect, for the entirety of my life.

I support the 2nd Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, equally. The purpose of the Amendment, as written by the Founders, was to ensure an armed populace, ready to defend themselves against both foreign aggressors, as well as from the possibility of a tyrannical government in the future.

Mr. Obama continues to eschew the Constitution, rather than defend it, at every opportunity. The edict the issued forth this morning does nothing to increase safety. It was but theater, designed to make his legacy appear more substantial to future generations, while actually accomplishing nothing.

[jbondeson]

I'm anti gun

FTFY

And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.

[digi]

I'm anti gun

FTFY

And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.

No need to convince me, I already picked my side .

[jbondeson]

I'm anti gun

FTFY

And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.

No need to convince me, I already picked my side .

I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."

And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.

[fohat.digs]

I, too, swore an oath when I was an employee of the Department of Homeland Security.

The Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

and I believe that the first clause is at least as important as the second clause. Ignorant 18-year-old rednecks walking around in the local Target store carrying loaded assault weapons (it has happened near my house more than once) is hardly what I would describe as a "well regulated militia".

I have little respect for people who denigrate (not a pun) a successful 2-term commander-in-chief simply because their opinion differs from his, when the population in general is approximately evenly divided (and even that is a bit of a stretch):

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Unlike other recent endeavors:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/not-worth-it-huge-majority-regret-iraq-war-exclusive-poll-n139686

Automobiles and their operation are carefully regulated to ensure public safety, as are many other activities.

[digi]

I'm anti gun

FTFY

And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.

No need to convince me, I already picked my side .

I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."

And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.

I "fear-monger" every time I go to a Walmart..

[jbondeson]

I'm anti gun

FTFY

And this is the problem, if you're not for everyone being able to carry their handgun into their daughters soccer game you're anti-gun.

No need to convince me, I already picked my side .

I view this as a nuanced issue. It doesn't have to be "no guns anywhere" or "arm your children on their way to preschool."

And the NRA and the hardcore anti-gun nuts make it so there is no chance for discourse. Instead of facts there are emotions, instead of reason fear mongering.

I "fear-monger" every time I go to a Walmart..

Well I suppose this conversation has made about as much sense as most gun debates do...

[Connly33]

I'm pro gun rights, and pro gun control. I'd say i'm more of a hobbyist, though it is nice to have a firearm for protection. I'm working on getting my first handgun that is suitable for concealed carry, but to be honest i'm glad loopholes like this are being closed, i dont mind going through a little extra paperwork if it really does mean that less individuals that are not in a position to own firearms can get there hands on them.

But that's my opinion and i dont hate on anyone with anti gun or anti gun control views, but personally i stand more in the middle on my views.

But what i cant stand is the " guns are only for killing " mindset, to me it is a tool, arguably a multipurpose tool, i'm sure if i was intent on killing someone my Func KB 460 with its 1/4 in steel top plate could easily help me do so ( As proved by linus of linus tech tips in one of the advert's they did for Func)

Ok, I'm going to pick on a couple of your statements here (but not on you, promise )

Let's start backwards:

RE: Guns are tools - Guns have three uses: 1) recreation, 2) threat of violence (defensive and offensive), and 3) Attempting to or killing living things (hunting animals or people). None of those is really a tool; the first has no practical purpose, and the next two operate on the same principle: guns are made to put holes in squishy things that should not have them.

And I doubt you could massacre a half dozen people from several hundred yards with your Func...

RE: Protection - The only reason you want a gun for protection is because there are so many other guns out there. So, yeah there's kinda another solution that doesn't involve having yet another gun out there (not to mention that many home gun fatalities involve the gun that's already in the house).

RE: Conceal Carry - This is something that legitimately chaps my hide. There is exactly zero reason non-law enforcement personnel should be allowed to be packing heat in public. Nearly every situation you can cook up involves another gun (see above) or the carrier simply making the situation worse due to a lack of training.

* jbondeson takes a deep breath

No offence taken by me , everyone has there own opinion and you make good point's. But.


1.) The definition of tool is a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
whether it be recreational or not putting a hole into a target is a function. And for a more practical example would be hunting ( though i hate much it's used fro anti gun control examples) Maybe some people can go and hunt with there bare hands, or things like knives or bows, a gun is a tool used to make hunting easier.

And no individual is going to massacre half a dozen people from several hundred yards away with even a long range Correctly termed assault rifle unless there in the top special forces kind of league.

2.) Even with more gun control or a complete gun ban, there is still going to be unregistered firearm's in circulation indefinitely, so yes, i want to be able to have a gun because it's most likely that if someone is going to break into my home it is going to be the type of criminal that disregards gun laws.  And for in home involved shootings guns need to be properly secured.

3.) As for lack of training, most gun enthusiasts have had proper training for concealed carry, and personally i think to get your concealed carry permit it should be required, and again as i said if there are going to be other's illegally carrying regardless of gun laws, i want the ability to carry legally with the proper training. Personally i am going through classes for self defense regarding concealed carry, at least in my area most instructors are either current or retired law- enforcement. My reason for getting a concealed carry permit is not to be able to carry everywhere, acctually i dont really ever tend to use it. But i want the ability to if i ever see a situation where i see fit to, or on the off chance i have a job that requires it.







ry

[jaffers]

I am in Australia where assault weapons were banned many years ago and since, massacres (there have been none since) and suicide rate has dropped significantly.

Yet it is still easy to own a gun. You can get your gun licence when you are 14 and shoot, shotguns, rifles and pistols. You just pay a 100 dollars or so, go to the safety course, do the theory course and then you can freely buy a gun as you wish. We own a variety of different guns and one of my friends who is a roo shooter (i.e. he shoots kangaroos, cuts off the limbs, bleeds and guts them and sells the meat to other countries) owns upwards of 60 guns ranging from air rifles to .45 buffalo gun to BAR rifle, to an elephant gun. He has a standard licence. Its just like getting a drivers licence and I think the law in america that any citizen is allowed to bear arms is fine, and its pretty much the same over here, but you just have to be qualified and not a risk to society.

If you sell someone a car you have to do all the required paper work. What is the difference with a gun? Its a weapon. I am completely pro guns and hunt quite a bit on our cattle station, don't get me wrong.

On another note, maybe it is best to let people have guns, survival of the fittest and all.

Jim Jefferies makes a good point

[Melvang]

Can we please stop using the term "assault weapon"?  It is nothing but a made up term for scary looking guns.  Now assault rifle, that has an actual definition.  Though, anything that qualifies for that, is fully automatic.  Now, technically, there are ways to legally own them in some states.  However, I want to point out that there have only been two violent crimes ever committed with a LEGALLY owned fully automatic rifle.  Both of these crimes were committed by cops back in the '20s or so.  I don't remember details of one, but the other was a cop that came home with his police issued "Tommy Gun" and found his wife sleeping with another man. 

Also, there is no "gun show loop hole".  Any business that sells anything that requires background check or paperwork is legally obligated to hold up to these standards, just the same as they would at a brick and mortar store.  What people think is the loop hole, is that in some states, there is no legal obligation to preform a background check, waiting period, or any paperwork for gun sales from a private owner to a private owner, so long as the sale takes place in the buyers home state.  If the buyer lives in a different state, there is paperwork required for crossing state lines, etc.

Now I am a gun owner, have been raised around guns, been shooting since I was 9 or 10, participated in my high schools trap shoot team, and have kids in the house.  Though, none of my guns are technically locked, but they are in a locker in the back room of the garage where my kids do not have access to.  My kids are 7 and 4.  Hell a couple of them are my kids guns they won from Ducks Unlimited banquet dinners from the Green Wings.  Both my kids and my niece and nephew are legacy Green Wings.

Now I do agree with background checks, the waiting period doesn't bother me, and I feel that anyone who can own a gun should be able to carry in public, provided they at least take a safety course, competency test, and a course specifically dealing with the legal ramifications of open and concealed carry.

[Connly33]

Can we please stop using the term "assault weapon"?  It is nothing but a made up term for scary looking guns.  Now assault rifle, that has an actual definition.  Though, anything that qualifies for that, is fully automatic.  Now, technically, there are ways to legally own them in some states.  However, I want to point out that there have only been two violent crimes ever committed with a LEGALLY owned fully automatic rifle.  Both of these crimes were committed by cops back in the '20s or so.  I don't remember details of one, but the other was a cop that came home with his police issued "Tommy Gun" and found his wife sleeping with another man. 

Also, there is no "gun show loop hole".  Any business that sells anything that requires background check or paperwork is legally obligated to hold up to these standards, just the same as they would at a brick and mortar store.  What people think is the loop hole, is that in some states, there is no legal obligation to preform a background check, waiting period, or any paperwork for gun sales from a private owner to a private owner, so long as the sale takes place in the buyers home state.  If the buyer lives in a different state, there is paperwork required for crossing state lines, etc.

Now I am a gun owner, have been raised around guns, been shooting since I was 9 or 10, participated in my high schools trap shoot team, and have kids in the house.  Though, none of my guns are technically locked, but they are in a locker in the back room of the garage where my kids do not have access to.  My kids are 7 and 4.  Hell a couple of them are my kids guns they won from Ducks Unlimited banquet dinners from the Green Wings.  Both my kids and my niece and nephew are legacy Green Wings.

Now I do agree with background checks, the waiting period doesn't bother me, and I feel that anyone who can own a gun should be able to carry in public, provided they at least take a safety course, competency test, and a course specifically dealing with the legal ramifications of open and concealed carry.

Pretty much exactly how i feel about it

[jacobolus]

Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.

$25/50 is a pittance to spend on a tool whose job is literally killing people.

It would be awesome if guns had an extra tax of $1,000, and bullets cost $50 each. (Obviously this is not politically feasible, and I’m not suggesting it as a serious proposal.)

This whole “gun right” thing is historically revisionist bull****. Nobody paid any attention to the second amendment one way or the other and courts interpreted it to mean that the Federal government couldn’t disband official state militias until the late 20th/early 21st century, when a small group of activists figured out they could reinterpret it to give their political agenda (unlimited gun sales) the imprimatur of legal legitimacy. In 2001 they won in circuit court and in 2008 (DC v. Heller) they finally got an activist right wing Supreme Court – Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts/Kennedy) to decide for them 5–4. I can only hope that a more originalist/textualist, conservative court will reverse this ruling in the future, once Hillary Clinton or whoever has had a chance to appoint a few replacements.

But if you look at the text, the key words are “well regulated militia”, which was about having some kind of citizen military not under direct Federal control in the era before a standing army. Even if you want to interpret this as citizens in general owning guns, the ”well regulated militia” part can obviously and easily be read to require extensive training, licensing, strict regulation of guns not useful for the purposes of the militia, tracking across borders, etc., or even required participation in a regulated organization. Not: every untrained grandmother and teenager gets an uzi and should carry it to school and church!

Moreover, the “arms” under discussion in the 18th century were front-loaded muskets. It would be awesome if all guns took 30 seconds to load and had horrible accuracy. It would make accidental deaths a hell of a lot harder. (Also not feasible, and not a serious proposal.)

In any event, beyond the tragedy of rampant murder, gun suicide, police shootings, and accidental shootings in the US, the even bigger tragedy is that a handful of US companies are the biggest suppliers of the international small arms trade, which basically amounts to selling murder tools to untrained child soldiers, to be used in large part for killing civilians. Shameful. (Swiss and other European companies also on the hook here.)

[Connly33]

Problem being is that FFL's won't want to do this for free, in fast they usually cost $25-50.  That $25-50 could be an unfair burden on the poor - if an ID is too much to ask for to vote, I think an actual fee to use a right is also too much to ask.

$25/50 is a pittance to spend on a tool whose job is literally killing people.

It would be awesome if guns had an extra tax of $1,000, and bullets cost $50 each.

This whole “gun right” thing is historically revisionist bull****. Nobody paid any attention to the second amendment one way or the other until the late 20th century, when a small group of activists figured out they could reinterpret it to give their political agenda the imprimatur of legal legitimacy. But if you look at the text, the key words are “well regulated militia”, which was about having some kind of citizen military in the era before a standing army. Even if you want to interpret this as citizens in general owning guns, the ”well regulated militia” part can obviously and easily be read to require extensive training, licensing, strict regulation of guns not useful for the purposes of the militia, tracking across borders, etc., or even required participation in a regulated organization. Not: every untrained grandmother and teenager gets an uzi and should carry it to school and church!

Moreover, the “arms” under discussion in the 18th century were front-loaded muskets. It would be awesome if all guns took 30 seconds to load and had horrible accuracy. It would make accidental deaths a hell of a lot harder.

In any event, beyond the tragedy of rampant murder, gun suicide, police shootings, and accidental shootings in the US, the even bigger tragedy is that a handful of US companies are the biggest suppliers of the international small arms trade, which basically amounts to selling murder tools to untrained child soldiers, to be used in large part for killing civilians. Shameful. (Swiss and other European companies also on the hook here.)

I respect different opinions and anti gun opinions. But this honestly almost looks like an argument that would be on a facebook/ youtube comment thread with no critical thinking and only emotion involved.

[jacobolus]

There should absolutely be emotion involved. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of death in the US, unlike in any other developed country, and many of the victims are innocent children. Pro-gun activists in Congress have blocked any systematic study from being done related to gun violence, because if you did a study the results would be obvious: less guns and stricter gun access controls leads to dramatically reduced murder/suicide/accidental shooting rates, not to mention better relationships between citizens and police, an overall reduction in violence and crime, etc. Just look to Australia for a shining example. Our current gun laws are senseless brutality, and I consider the pro-gun activism in this country accessory to all these deaths.

I love America, but guns and cars (as in, organizing the whole society around cars, zoning laws which force car use, cities which are crazy unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists, etc.) are basically the #1 and #2 worst things about it. Two amazingly efficient killing machines. At least cars have a non-deadly primary purpose.

[Melvang]

There should absolutely be emotion involved. Gun violence is one of the leading causes of death in the US, unlike in any other developed country, and many of the victims are innocent children. Pro-gun activists in Congress have blocked any systematic study from being done related to gun violence, because if you did a study the results would be obvious: less guns and stricter gun access controls leads to dramatically reduced murder/suicide/accidental shooting rates. Just look to Australia for a shining example. Our current gun laws are senseless brutality, and I consider the pro-gun activism in this country accessory to all these deaths.

I love America, but guns and cars (as in, organizing the whole society around cars, zoning laws which force car use, cities which are crazy unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists, etc.) are basically the #1 and #2 worst things about it. Two amazingly efficient killing machines. At least cars have a non-deadly primary purpose.

You can find countries to use as examples for all combinations of high and low gun control with high and low crime rates.  Your example is invalid

Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers.  What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.

[jacobolus]

Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers.  What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.

If the crime here is carrying a gun in a public place, or owning a gun without extensive licensing with required training, then I’m all over this. Let’s snatch every person carrying a gun in public and throw them somewhere that they can’t hurt anyone but themselves for a few months.

If crime here means drug possession or petty theft or whatever, then you’re crazy. Our punishments for most crimes are way beyond absurd as it is. Our prison population ranks us with totalitarian dictatorships and failed states.

[Melvang]

Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers.  What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.

If the crime here is carrying a gun in a public place, or owning a gun without extensive licensing with required training, then I’m all over this. Let’s snatch every person carrying a gun in public and throw them somewhere that they can’t hurt anyone but themselves for a few months.

If crime here means drug possession or petty theft or whatever, then you’re crazy. Our punishments for most crimes are way beyond absurd as it is. Our prison population ranks us with totalitarian dictatorships and failed states.

Punishments for crimes in this country are a ****ing joke.  Provided you are a legal gun owner, and have all paperwork in order, how is carrying a gun a crime?

[jacobolus]

What crimes are you talking about Melvang? Tax evasion? Wire fraud? Racketeering? Illegal harassment during loan collections? Insider trading? Bribery? Illegal police or NSA wiretaps? High officials ordering war crimes? Cops shooting children holding toy guns?

I agree that punishments are a sick joke. The death penalty should be abolished, and life imprisonment should be reserved for the worst offenders. Our public defenders and legal system should be sufficiently funded and restructured to avoid so much reliance on plea bargains, to prevent so many innocent people from going to prison. Ex-felons who have served their time should not be stripped of the right to vote, nor should they be prevented from finding some kind of employment. Prisons conditions should be improved, with a crackdown on abuse by prisoners and guards alike, should be made public (instead of for-profit private contractors) and should do a better job of rehabilitating offenders. In general sentences should be lightened and prisoners should be treated with dignity and respect, so that they’ll have a chance to reenter society as functioning adults instead of being forced back into a life of organized crime.

[Connly33]

Making it harder to buy guns to reduce gun crime is like trying to make it harder to buy a car to fight drunk drivers.  What this country needs is stricter punishments for crimes to the point where people are actually afraid to get caught.

If the crime here is carrying a gun in a public place, or owning a gun without extensive licensing with required training, then I’m all over this. Let’s snatch every person carrying a gun in public and throw them somewhere that they can’t hurt anyone but themselves for a few months.

If crime here means drug possession or petty theft or whatever, then you’re crazy. Our punishments for most crimes are way beyond absurd as it is. Our prison population ranks us with totalitarian dictatorships and failed states.

From what i've been involved with and have seen personally, drugs have a much more destructive impact then gun's ever have. I've lost a very significant amount of close family members related to drug's and drug related crimes. And none to any kind of gun related accident/crime despite being around guns most of my life.  So why should current punishments be considered absurd ?
 

The war on drugs is great example of what happens when you try to too heavily restrict something. Laws are not going to fix a supply and demand issue.

 

[baldgye]

Plz demik explain how I'm the only stupid one here lmao