Author Topic: Guns are Icky  (Read 4358 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 41839
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #70 on: February 21, 2018, 03:30:54 PM »
Isn't it time to stop pointing fingers at one another and have true reform.  I'm not saying taking guns away but lets make it harder for those who might have mental issues and bad background to purchase guns.  Also, lets have true healthcare reform (I'm looking at you Dems & Reps) and lets get something done.

Also people need to speak up when they know a certain person is not quite right.  A lot of kids said they knew something was wrong but never spoke up.  It's time to teach our children to see something, say something.
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20459
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #71 on: February 21, 2018, 03:34:37 PM »
Isn't it time to stop pointing fingers at one another and have true reform.  I'm not saying taking guns away but lets make it harder for those who might have mental issues and bad background to purchase guns.  Also, lets have true healthcare reform (I'm looking at you Dems & Reps) and lets get something done.

Also people need to speak up when they know a certain person is not quite right.  A lot of kids said they knew something was wrong but never spoke up.  It's time to teach our children to see something, say something.

As for the first paragraph, we will keep dreaming.  I agree, but I have no realistic hope on our congress working together for the better good of the people.  As for the bottom part, I agree, but in this latest one, it seems people were reporting about this guy left and right and yet no one intervened.  It must be really deflating to make the report and it didn't get the attention it deserved.

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 41839
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #72 on: February 21, 2018, 04:33:14 PM »
Ok I just read that.  There needs some accountability for not getting this kid help. 
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2018, 01:54:19 PM »
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/12/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-allowing-adults-carry-gun-without-license/604716002/

So does anybody who isn't a lobbyist for the gun manufactures think constitutional carry is a good idea? Most states will already allow some sort of carry option, providing you pass a security check and demonstrate one or two other aspects of not-crazy. Now the background checks are bad? The NRA is now looking forward to the ouster of the governor of one of the most bat-shit conservative states in the union because she listened to the law enforcement agencies of her state who told her this would be dangerous. I just can't imagine that even the rank and file members are actually in line with this. It amazes me that normal people support these ass-hats.

I'll also point out that the NRA's raison d'etre is to keep the government from encroaching on the 2A. Not an unreasonable goal, IMO. However, that would be a defensive stance. Their rationale for opposing things like universal background checks, which even its own membership supports, is ostensibly on the basis that if you give The Man an inch he'll take a mile. Bad logic, but somewhat correct. What we're seeing from them now is specifically offensive, though. They're not defending gun owners against state intrusion. They're actively seeking to expand gun ownership at many levels, as one would expect from the lobbying branch of the gun industry. This really is a very bad group of people.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29309
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2018, 02:17:36 PM »
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-charged-in-ballpark-village-killing-but-he-s-still/article_7af63e0c-8ec2-5659-b8c2-abaedf1651c6.html

Just awful.  And I was actually at the Cardinals game on 5/1 where they had a moment of silence for the man who was killed.  Such senseless violence.   :( :(

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #75 on: May 12, 2018, 05:25:37 PM »
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/man-charged-in-ballpark-village-killing-but-he-s-still/article_7af63e0c-8ec2-5659-b8c2-abaedf1651c6.html

Just awful.  And I was actually at the Cardinals game on 5/1 where they had a moment of silence for the man who was killed.  Such senseless violence.   :( :(

Yeah. I saw that. All this means is there will now be metal detectors installed which will guarantee that’s yet another venue downtown I won’t support.

Not a fan of having my Missouri Constittutuonal (and National) right to defend myself taken away by these businesses.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #76 on: May 14, 2018, 08:08:32 AM »
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/12/oklahoma-governor-vetoes-bill-aimed-allowing-adults-carry-gun-without-license/604716002/

So does anybody who isn't a lobbyist for the gun manufactures think constitutional carry is a good idea? Most states will already allow some sort of carry option, providing you pass a security check and demonstrate one or two other aspects of not-crazy. Now the background checks are bad? The NRA is now looking forward to the ouster of the governor of one of the most bat-shit conservative states in the union because she listened to the law enforcement agencies of her state who told her this would be dangerous. I just can't imagine that even the rank and file members are actually in line with this. It amazes me that normal people support these ass-hats.

I'll also point out that the NRA's raison d'etre is to keep the government from encroaching on the 2A. Not an unreasonable goal, IMO. However, that would be a defensive stance. Their rationale for opposing things like universal background checks, which even its own membership supports, is ostensibly on the basis that if you give The Man an inch he'll take a mile. Bad logic, but somewhat correct. What we're seeing from them now is specifically offensive, though. They're not defending gun owners against state intrusion. They're actively seeking to expand gun ownership at many levels, as one would expect from the lobbying branch of the gun industry. This really is a very bad group of people.

I'm with you on this.  I am adamant about following the data - which in my estimation does NOT support "removing guns themselves as a solution to the increasing tendency for people to use public violence as an outlet" - but I do support background checks and administrative controls on gun ownership and usage.    I can't really fathom the NRA strategy here, though.   If "give an inch, he'll take a mile" is the premise, why would you expect the other side to give YOU that inch?   Being on the offensive here doesn't help them.  This isn't the political version of two boxers in a stalemate and pushing each other away in order to engage again.  This is just... I don't know what this is.   Even I - a relative constitutional zealot - don't really buy into this scheme. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #77 on: May 14, 2018, 08:45:16 AM »
Yeah, it goes right in line with their bizarre understanding of what reciprocity is. As much as they say otherwise, their goal is very clearly to make sure as many guns as possible are on the streets at any time.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #78 on: May 14, 2018, 09:30:52 AM »
Missouri has constitutional carry now and I hate it. Anyone over age (19) without a record can just conceal a firearm....no class....nothing. Just hide the weapon.

Funny enough....I was pulled over on Friday night and as I mentioned my weapon being near my wallet the officer and I got to talking about how I no longer needed a CCW license and that I could just carry. Fast forward five full minutes and we were still talking guns...training etc. He ended up giving me a written warning and just told me to slow down (54 in a 40)

I am all about conceal carry....think that I should be able to take my gun anywhere at anytime. But I also think that with that responsibility there should be mandatory classes, extended background checks and mandatory scheduled training to achieve that type of CCW privilege. I'd do whatever it took to guarantee  me that I could surpass metal detectors or whatever security screening there was.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 535
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #79 on: May 14, 2018, 09:55:36 AM »
for some reason I'm suddenly reminded of this Dave Chappelle bit... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ3dk6KAvQM

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #80 on: November 20, 2018, 01:28:24 PM »
https://6abc.com/mercy-hospital-gunman-what-we-know/4725117/

So in what idiotic world does a person with a protection order out against him get a permit to carry a damn gun? Yeah, I know, the answer will be that it's the idiotic world of Chicago, but isn't the common gripe that they have some of the strictest gun laws around and still manage to kill each other? There were red flags all over the place about this guy, but not only was he still allowed to purchase weapons he was permitted to carry them in public.

Like I asked in the other thread, does anybody think this guy should have been allowed to own a gun?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7122
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #81 on: November 20, 2018, 01:53:13 PM »
I echoed your question in that thread and expanded on it with my thoughts. Never developed in to a discussion though.

Wasn't sure where to put this. WA passed a pretty comprehensive initiative about gun ownership (look it up, I-1639), and King County passed the below. The Warning Sign deal is a bit silly, but whatever. I am not a gun owner so did not read through the epic text of the initiative, but is already on the way to the courts, not necessarily because of the text but how it was presented "They argued that initiative language printed on the back of petition forms was too small and that it did not include customary strike-throughs to show how current law would be changed. State law requires initiative petitions to include a “readable, full, true and correct” copy of the measure." Hard to say how it will go if it makes it to the State SC. I imagine them saying "Well, the people voted for this, and we like it, so it stands" but it's too early to say.

https://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/king-county-approves-gun-warning-sign-requirement/
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #82 on: November 20, 2018, 02:28:10 PM »
I echoed your question in that thread and expanded on it with my thoughts. Never developed in to a discussion though.

Wasn't sure where to put this. WA passed a pretty comprehensive initiative about gun ownership (look it up, I-1639), and King County passed the below. The Warning Sign deal is a bit silly, but whatever. I am not a gun owner so did not read through the epic text of the initiative, but is already on the way to the courts, not necessarily because of the text but how it was presented "They argued that initiative language printed on the back of petition forms was too small and that it did not include customary strike-throughs to show how current law would be changed. State law requires initiative petitions to include a “readable, full, true and correct” copy of the measure." Hard to say how it will go if it makes it to the State SC. I imagine them saying "Well, the people voted for this, and we like it, so it stands" but it's too early to say.

https://www.kirklandreporter.com/news/king-county-approves-gun-warning-sign-requirement/
The warning sign thing is a bit silly, but some of the other stuff is pretty reasonable. I have no doubt it'll get challenged, but whatever. The authorization to purchase a semi-automatic long gun is actually something I through out a while back. I'd limit it to large caliber ammunition, though. I thought it a fair compromise (though our boss in Fairfax would certainly have it nixed).

With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7122
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2018, 12:18:26 PM »
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28032
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2018, 12:49:54 PM »
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but there are large numbers of our society, specifically minorities, who, often correctly, assume authorities will not protect them.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2018, 01:03:38 PM »
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."
[/b]

Well...specifically the officers.....the odds of them being there in the off chance I'd need them to be there to protect me or my family are extremely low. I have a CCW just for that fact.

 The Police won't be in my car with me if someone tries to car jack me when I'm parking for a Cardinals game......they won't be there if I'm accosted by a group or individual when walking back to my car with my family in the mall parking lot. They aren't going to be there if someone breaks into my home and tries to either harm me or my family.

They'll do the grunt work in the aftermath but in the moment they simply won't be there to protect you.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6216
  • Kabbalah
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2018, 01:24:33 PM »
The Police won't be in my car with me if someone tries to car jack me when I'm parking for a Cardinals game...

And, to go off on a brief tangent, Busch Stadium is REALLY cool.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2018, 08:37:12 PM »
With regards to what the gun store owner said, I'd now change the required warning signs to read "The odds of your weapon being used in crime, accidental shooting, or suicide are far greater than the odds of you using it to kill a bad guy."  :biggrin:

No doubt, but kidding aside, I am fearful we are moving in the direction of people who would not otherwise consider owning firearms moving in that direction due to a (real or perceived) increase in crime and lack of authorities handling it. We can't let our society go to the point of the common citizen thinking "the cops and city hall aren't going to protect me, so I'm going to do what I can to protect myself."


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but there are large numbers of our society, specifically minorities, who, often correctly, assume authorities will not protect them.

"Correctly"?   Who says "correctly", and more importantly "when"? 

Offline Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 28032
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2018, 09:06:31 PM »
Lots of people say correctly. It's a commonly used word. Often.  :-*
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7122
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #89 on: February 01, 2019, 10:54:50 AM »
This is curious....

https://www.krem.com/article/news/politics/chelan-co-sheriff-joins-ozzie-knezovich-others-opposed-to-i-1639/293-beb89b25-cce3-4150-821e-2e6a6c1b7c2b

WA recently passed an initiative related to gun purchases/ownership. I am not a gun owner so I didn't read all the details in this initiative, and there are many. Being a very "progressive" state (well, Seattle is anyway, and by virtue of population, this initiative passed pretty handily. Of course there are legal challenges to the initiative, and some small town authorities are not going to enforce it within their jurisdiction, ironically liking their area to a "sanctuary" as more liberal cities/states have with regards to other legislation, particularly immigration enforcement.

Humor aside, this makes me think of EB's frequent posts about how some cities/states are placing so many restrictions on abortion that make it nearly legal only in name. Are we going to see gun legislation tip so far that the right to bear arms has so many restrictions on it that it becomes such a limited right?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #90 on: February 01, 2019, 12:00:53 PM »
This is curious....

https://www.krem.com/article/news/politics/chelan-co-sheriff-joins-ozzie-knezovich-others-opposed-to-i-1639/293-beb89b25-cce3-4150-821e-2e6a6c1b7c2b

WA recently passed an initiative related to gun purchases/ownership. I am not a gun owner so I didn't read all the details in this initiative, and there are many. Being a very "progressive" state (well, Seattle is anyway, and by virtue of population, this initiative passed pretty handily. Of course there are legal challenges to the initiative, and some small town authorities are not going to enforce it within their jurisdiction, ironically liking their area to a "sanctuary" as more liberal cities/states have with regards to other legislation, particularly immigration enforcement.

Humor aside, this makes me think of EB's frequent posts about how some cities/states are placing so many restrictions on abortion that make it nearly legal only in name. Are we going to see gun legislation tip so far that the right to bear arms has so many restrictions on it that it becomes such a limited right?
It's a valid point, but I think the same obstacle applies to both. My most recent post re abortion (and I'd hardly say they're frequent  :lol) was about Indiana as a counterpoint to New York. So long as we're only looking at it at the state level there will be states where abortions are de facto1 illegal and guns are abundant and easy to obtain, and other states where you can't but a gun but can ruthlessly murder your child2 whenever you wish.

In the real world, this court will likely shoot down many of the provisions you're talking about, so I wouldn't be too concerned about WA. When the SCOTUS signs off on no abortions after six weeks it wouldn't surprise me to see an attempt to pass a federal law stating same. So for now, both sides get some solace from state's rights, but as I (in this case frequently) have pointed out state's rights is only a thing when you like the right, so what the future holds is a big question.


1That one's for Metty
2This one's for Bosk
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6216
  • Kabbalah
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #91 on: February 01, 2019, 12:04:17 PM »
I feel the love.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #92 on: February 02, 2019, 06:36:10 PM »
Next time someone poo-poohs the idea of a "slippery slope", the notion of "sanctuary" as simply a means to defy the law should be your example.  Now, whenever someone or some entity decides "hey, I don't like that!" it's deemed a "sanctuary" for that law. 

That's not what laws are; they're not an "option" from which we get "sanctuary".     

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #93 on: February 27, 2019, 03:37:32 PM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

And then there's this asshole:
Quote from: Steve Scalise
I'm proud to work with the NRA to oppose these gun control bills they are bringing to the Capitol – HR 8 and HR 1112
SMH
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #94 on: February 27, 2019, 04:09:41 PM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?   

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #95 on: February 27, 2019, 04:41:16 PM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?
Nope. They'd still happen, and others like them will happen. And that means precisely dick.

And ironically, the loopholes were probably added at the behest of the republican co-sponsors who chickened out when it actually came time to vote for the thing.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20811
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #96 on: February 28, 2019, 06:16:23 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?

Drunk driving laws don't stop all instances of drunk driving and deaths related them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #97 on: February 28, 2019, 07:34:56 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20811
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #98 on: February 28, 2019, 07:42:35 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.


I direct you to the comment section of this article.

https://www.infowars.com/house-passes-sweeping-gun-legislation-to-expand-background-checks-to-cover-virtually-all-sales/



Keep your eye on it throughout the day. I'm sure there will be plenty more gems like this:

Quote
This is it where you decide to die for your rights or you fold like a wimp. If they come to your door to get your gun which they surely will you must do all you can to kill just one of the tyrants who comes to your door and be prepared to die. If we all manage to kill just one of the tyrants we win because our army is so much bigger than theirs.

I know we can't prevent the mass events like Vegas or Sandy Hook, but I wouldn't mind keeping guns out of the hands of that guy. I know the law won't allow that, but personally, that post alone would be enough justification for me to deem that person not mentally sound enough to possess a firearm.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2019, 07:58:30 AM by Chino »

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #99 on: February 28, 2019, 08:23:53 AM »
I direct you to the comment section of this article.

https://www.infowars.com/house-passes-sweeping-gun-legislation-to-expand-background-checks-to-cover-virtually-all-sales/

Keep your eye on it throughout the day. I'm sure there will be plenty more gems like this:

Quote
This is it where you decide to die for your rights or you fold like a wimp. If they come to your door to get your gun which they surely will you must do all you can to kill just one of the tyrants who comes to your door and be prepared to die. If we all manage to kill just one of the tyrants we win because our army is so much bigger than theirs.

I know we can't prevent the mass events like Vegas or Sandy Hook, but I wouldn't mind keeping guns out of the hands of that guy. I know the law won't allow that, but personally, that post alone would be enough justification for me to deem that person not mentally sound enough to possess a firearm.

Ugh. I totally get where you're coming from. Being (what I consider) a 'responsible' gun owner.....comments like this are tough to listen to. Freaking sucks.

Locally, last week.....a man and his wife were car jacked at a supermarket at 11:15 in the morning. Car Jacker just walked up to them in the parking lot while they were loading their car and demanded the keys and took the car. So....as the car jacker drives away in this guys car the car jack victim takes out his gun and proceeds to fire 4 rounds at the dude.

What the holy  :censored   You have to be kidding me. Not only are you shooting at your car and possibly damaging it.....you're haphazardly firing across a parking lot to where anyone of those bullets could strike an innocent bystander. In order to use deadly force in Missouri you have to have a 'fear for your life or the lives of loved ones'. A car jacker fleeing in your car does not give you the right to fire off a few rounds. Maybe if he'd tried to run you over....but even then you're outside and a stray shot could hurt someone.

I haven't read if they've charged that guy with unlawful use of a weapon or something like that but I'd revoke his right to carry in a heartbeat. Just idiotic and it adds to a negative perception of gun owners.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #100 on: February 28, 2019, 08:25:56 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
The secret service accepted this as an axiom years ago. If a bad guy is determined enough there's nothing they can do to stop him. Their role is to make it difficult enough that he won't want to try. A parallel to this is that the more difficult they make it the greater the likelihood that he slips up along the way. Could a shooter still obtain weapons illegally? Sure, but there's also a possibility that he gets busted buying them in a back alley from a known gangster. Or gets pulled over for speeding along the way and is questioned about the guns in his car. Isn't this how McVey got busted?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2019, 08:35:16 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
The secret service accepted this as an axiom years ago. If a bad guy is determined enough there's nothing they can do to stop him. Their role is to make it difficult enough that he won't want to try. A parallel to this is that the more difficult they make it the greater the likelihood that he slips up along the way. Could a shooter still obtain weapons illegally? Sure, but there's also a possibility that he gets busted buying them in a back alley from a known gangster. Or gets pulled over for speeding along the way and is questioned about the guns in his car. Isn't this how McVey got busted?

Oh I  understand that.....I'm speaking more to the contingent of people out there that truly believe should we have much more strict gun laws that shootings (etc) will just go away. Because there are people out there who believe that.

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21617
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2019, 08:41:32 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

I have zero argument with anything specified here. I don't know how much more 'common sense' you can get with it? I think any and every law abiding gun owner will not have an issue with simple measures like this. The unfortunate thing is I don't think any law out there would have stopped a large chunk of these shooters.

The Sandy Hook kid use a weapon that was just laying around his mom's house. That vegas shooter for all intents and purposes was 'law abiding'. Now this recent dude in Chicago did have his gun rights revoked but there was no follow up or verification that he didn't have a weapon.

I guess my point is one that's been made a hundred times.....if someone gets it in their head to shoot up the local supermarket.....they're going to no matter what law is in place.
The secret service accepted this as an axiom years ago. If a bad guy is determined enough there's nothing they can do to stop him. Their role is to make it difficult enough that he won't want to try. A parallel to this is that the more difficult they make it the greater the likelihood that he slips up along the way. Could a shooter still obtain weapons illegally? Sure, but there's also a possibility that he gets busted buying them in a back alley from a known gangster. Or gets pulled over for speeding along the way and is questioned about the guns in his car. Isn't this how McVey got busted?

Oh I  understand that.....I'm speaking more to the contingent of people out there that truly believe should we have much more strict gun laws that shootings (etc) will just go away. Because there are people out there who believe that.
I disregard those people. There are plenty who feel that we should all have as many guns as possible for when the ghost of Janet Reno comes to the door to seize their weapons. Like the first group they're in the fringes. Both are unworthy of consideration in my book. My concern is over a fucking US congressman who claims pride in being a roadblock on behalf of the NRA, over an idea that something like 90% of people support.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15580
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #103 on: February 28, 2019, 09:51:55 AM »
Quote
The legislation mandates background checks be performed on all gun sales, including firearm purchases made privately, whether it be online or at gun shows. Under current law, only licensed gun dealers are required to conduct a background check for someone seeking to obtain a gun.

There are exceptions.

The background check does not apply to transfers between close relatives. A firearm could also be loaned to someone using it at a shooting range or for the purposes of hunting and trapping, unless there's a reason to suspect the gun will be used in a crime or the person receiving the gun is prohibited from possessing the gun under state or federal law.

A temporary transfer of a gun can also take place in situations where it's "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don't object. Bosk? VT? GMD?

Don't misunderstand, I have no beef with this generally (even if I find it woefully irrelevant to solve the problem of school and workplace violence in our society) but this attempt to close the gunshow loophole... seems to create as many loopholes as it closes.   Does this stop Sandy Hook?   Parkland?

Drunk driving laws don't stop all instances of drunk driving and deaths related them, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

Except that many of the gun control measures aren't "good not great" fixes to "reduce harm not eliminate it".  Drunk driving is not a good analogy, because there aren't other drunks thinking "oh, there are less people out there driving drunk, therefore my drunkenness will be more effective".     There are legitimate studies (including one conducted by Harvard) that have shown that in some instances, gun control measures have INCREASED the harm.  In Australia, for example (the best the Harvard study could do is to say that the impact on improved metrics was "inconclusive" at best, and likely attributable to other measures taken in the wake of an initial erosion of metrics following the passing of the ban.)

Look, I've no beef with background checks - assuming they cover the right metrics - as I think there will ultimately be a benefit to society independent of the gun issue.   I also think that creating a database in the event that there is a catastrophe is ultimately a good thing.  But if anyone thinks that school shootings are going to decrease because if this, well, I have a long lost Hendrix album I want to sell you.  No seriously, he gave it to me when I met him in '69. 

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12535
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Guns are Icky
« Reply #104 on: February 28, 2019, 10:11:48 AM »
Along with these seemingly common sense laws I firmly believe that there should be a National Conceal Carry license available to obtain to allow 'me' permissions to carry anywhere.... Strict background check(s)....large enough fee to where only the 'serious' people would consider it.....whatever it takes. I don't even care if I had to 'register' or whatever. I just want the ability to carry my weapon into any establishment, amusement park, Sporting event....wherever.

I still do it anyway in Missouri because of the language in the Conceal Carry law.....it's not a 'criminal act' if I am found to be carrying in the locations that display 'no weapons'. I would just be asked to leave...if I refused then the police would step in and if I continued to be a dick about it my carry license would be revoked.

But, places like concert events, sports....etc are adding metal detectors.....which I understand.....but I do not go to these events any longer due to the fact that I can't carry into them.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind