America's Gun Violence

jnimhaoileoin

dudeman said:

After 184 pages and a lot of bickering, have we gotten anywhere with this discussion? 

No and we never will

unsung

Especially when no reasonable solutions are being discussed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Especially when no reasonable solutions are being discussed.

There are plenty of reasonable solutions discussed. No reasonable one has been missed. 

You have resisted every one of them to support and maintain the status quo. You don't see the problem and if you do see the problem... you don't care to fix it because you might be inconvenienced in some way, shape or form.

unsung

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

HesCalledDyer

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

Halifax2TheMax

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

Or straw buyers, who buy multiple guns legally to sell on the street. That's really what the NRA, acting on behalf of the gun industry, opposes.

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

Or straw buyers, who buy multiple guns legally to sell on the street. That's really what the NRA, acting on behalf of the gun industry, opposes.

Like I've said before, registration would be a really big step in the right direction.  New jersey has some of the toughest gun laws in the country however the vast majority of firearms used in crimes in new jersey were not bought here.  

"The majority of out-of-state crime guns came from Pennsylvania and five southern states known for their loose requirements for gun purchasing: North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, which accounted for 1,084 guns. Those states represent tributaries of what law enforcement officials call the "iron pipeline," through which guns flow up Interstate 95 and into New Jersey, New York and other states where buying firearms is more difficult."

unsung

Halifax2TheMax said:

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

Or straw buyers, who buy multiple guns legally to sell on the street. That's really what the NRA, acting on behalf of the gun industry, opposes.

Straw purchasing is already prohibited by federal law.

unsung

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

How many do you own?  The process is already quite involved.  

I will absolutely pull an argument using the Constitution.  Obtaining a permit for a Right makes it a privilege. 

HesCalledDyer

unsung said:

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

How many do you own?  The process is already quite involved.  

I will absolutely pull an argument using the Constitution.  Obtaining a permit for a Right makes it a privilege. 

I own one.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

HesCalledDyer

I don't see you so adamantly defending the First Amendment despite it being broken by the very President of these United States on a daily basis...  Does the press not have to obtain permits or clearances for such things?

CM189191

unsung said:

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

How many do you own?  The process is already quite involved.  

I will absolutely pull an argument using the Constitution.  Obtaining a permit for a Right makes it a privilege. 

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Justice Antonin Scalia : D.C. v. Helle

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

HesCalledDyer said:

unsung said:

Sacrificing my Rights is more than an inconvenience. 

Again, no one (ok, maybe one person) is saying "take guns away."  Most of us who fall on the "gun control" side (for lack of a better term) just want better regulation in the process of obtaining a gun.  Again, you have to have a license to drive a car or pull a fish out of lake.  And it doesn't matter if those two things aren't written in the Constitution, so don't even pull that argument.  If you can't see both the comparison and contrast there, you're just being stubborn.
It's funny how the gun nuts in this country are all about "extreme vetting" when it comes to letting someone who isn't white or Christian visit the country because they might be dangerous, but no vetting for weapons getting into the hands of dangerous, careless, unstable, criminal, or mentally incapable people who already live here.

Or straw buyers, who buy multiple guns legally to sell on the street. That's really what the NRA, acting on behalf of the gun industry, opposes.

Straw purchasing is already prohibited by federal law.

Tell that to the guy in my state who just got arrested for buying 5 guns in one purchase and then trying to sell them on the street. How does a gun seller not sell five guns in one purchase? Are you claiming that its against federal law to buy more than one gun in a single purchase?

CM189191

How about we life the ban consolidating sales data into a searchable system, so the ATF could create a database that allows investigators to immediately check the history of any gun used in a crime?

The 1968 Gun Control Act gave the ATF authority to regulate federally licensed gun dealers. 

In 1978, the ATF tried to make dealers report most quarterly sales. The National Rifle Association and other groups attacked the plan and lobbied to kill the reporting requirement. Congress did as the gun lobby requested, blocking the quarterly report proposal and reducing the ATF's budget by $5 million, which happened to be the amount the agency had sought to update its computer capacity.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearms Protection Act, which bans the ATF from creating a registry of guns, gun owners, or gun sales. 

Federal lawmakers have also put a rider barring the agency from "consolidation or centralization" of gun dealers' records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011. At that point, Congress made the prohibition permanent, under law.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

That might be a nice place to start.

rgambs

i cant registur muh guns cuz teh gubbermint will coffinscape 'em.

unsung

HesCalledDyer said:

I don't see you so adamantly defending the First Amendment despite it being broken by the very President of these United States on a daily basis...  Does the press not have to obtain permits or clearances for such things?

No, they should not.  Unfortunately permit processes are just excuses to generate revenue.

unsung

CM189191 said:

How about we life the ban consolidating sales data into a searchable system, so the ATF could create a database that allows investigators to immediately check the history of any gun used in a crime?

The 1968 Gun Control Act gave the ATF authority to regulate federally licensed gun dealers. 

In 1978, the ATF tried to make dealers report most quarterly sales. The National Rifle Association and other groups attacked the plan and lobbied to kill the reporting requirement. Congress did as the gun lobby requested, blocking the quarterly report proposal and reducing the ATF's budget by $5 million, which happened to be the amount the agency had sought to update its computer capacity.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Firearms Protection Act, which bans the ATF from creating a registry of guns, gun owners, or gun sales. 

Federal lawmakers have also put a rider barring the agency from "consolidation or centralization" of gun dealers' records in every spending bill affecting the agency from 1979 through 2011. At that point, Congress made the prohibition permanent, under law.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbd9y/the-atfs-nonsensical-non-searchable-gun-databases-explained-392

That might be a nice place to start.

CM189191

The Supreme Court on Monday announced it would not hear two key cases surrounding the Second Amendment.

One case centered on California’s concealed-carry law that allows sheriffs to require individuals applying for concealed-carry permits to cite a need for the permit, such as feeling threatened. 

“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources,” the court concluded that “the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”

The Supreme Court has also upheld laws in Maryland and New Jersey that impose such restrictions on concealed-carry permits.

The second case dealt with the federal law that bans felons from possessing guns.  Two men from Pennsylvania who challenged the scope of a federal law that bans felons and some individuals charged with misdemeanors from possessing firearms.

unsung

I disagree highly with both.  Obviously.

CM189191

unsung said:

I disagree highly with both.  Obviously.

Why?  SCOTUS sided with states' rights to regulate fire-arms.  Should they be regulated at the Federal level instead?