It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:55 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
FavreFan wrote:
For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You're really a lot more impressed with that article than you should be. It's basically an even worse version of that geek at science fairs who does a report about the persistence of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the bodies of people who die of all sorts of diseases and gets people to say it should be banned to make some deep point about the importance of scientific education.

Also that bit at the end about states being allowed to enact more restrictive laws is pretty rich coming in an article co-authored by these two since they've been actively lobbying for reciprocal concealed and carry to become a thing and undermine states' abilities to pass such laws.


Last edited by ZephMarshack on Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:46 pm
Posts: 32891
pizza_Place: Gioacchino's
Baby McNown wrote:
With people willing to have reasonable discourse on it absolutely. With people like Chas, fuck no. With people like Ogie who demand to know what rights I would give my life for and then back down on giving their own life, I go back and forth 8)


You've never really stated what you believe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 22, 2018 11:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 64436
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Baby McNown wrote:
Darkside wrote:
I'm only asking people to read my opinions and consider them. Hopefully we can reach an accord. I'm also listening to other reasonable opinions. Would you say you're doing that?

With people willing to have reasonable discourse on it absolutely. With people like Chas, fuck no. With people like Ogie who demand to know what rights I would give my life for and then back down on giving their own life, I go back and forth 8)

Me personally... I'd die for any of our rights.
Too many have died for them already to be selfish enough to say I'm too cowardly to protect our rights for the rest of our friends and children and grandchildren.
Even the right for your foes to irritate you online.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You're really a lot more impressed with that article than you should be. It's basically an even worse version of that geek at science fairs who does a report about the persistence of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the bodies of people who die of all sorts of diseases and gets people to say it should be banned to make some deep point about the importance of scientific education.

Also that bit at the end about states being allowed to enact more restrictive laws is pretty rich coming in an article co-authored by these two since they've been actively lobbying for reciprocal concealed and carry to become a thing and undermine states' abilities to pass such laws.


We also live in a time where people like to pretend there is no gun control in our nation, and operate from that position every time this comes up. When, in fact, we have a fair amount of legislation restricting the sale, ownership, transfer and possession of weapons, as well as a civil court system to hold people liable for their reckless use of all the above categories.


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You're really a lot more impressed with that article than you should be. It's basically an even worse version of that geek at science fairs who does a report about the persistence of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the bodies of people who die of all sorts of diseases and gets people to say it should be banned to make some deep point about the importance of scientific education.

Also that bit at the end about states being allowed to enact more restrictive laws is pretty rich coming in an article co-authored by these two since they've been actively lobbying for reciprocal concealed and carry to become a thing and undermine states' abilities to pass such laws.

I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:45 pm
Posts: 689
pizza_Place: My own
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You're really a lot more impressed with that article than you should be. It's basically an even worse version of that geek at science fairs who does a report about the persistence of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the bodies of people who die of all sorts of diseases and gets people to say it should be banned to make some deep point about the importance of scientific education.

Also that bit at the end about states being allowed to enact more restrictive laws is pretty rich coming in an article co-authored by these two since they've been actively lobbying for reciprocal concealed and carry to become a thing and undermine states' abilities to pass such laws.


What?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
storkinastorm wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
For people convicted of domestic violence, even a misdemeanor, how about a lifetime prohibition on firearms possession?

Further, a government license should be required for anyone who wants to manufacture, import, or sell firearms. The license should be mandatory not only for formal businesses, but also for individuals who make repetitive transactions for the purpose of profit. This would cover people at gun shows who put up signs declaring themselves to be “unlicensed dealers.” Anyone who engages in the firearms business without a federal license should be punished by up to five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.
Manufacturers, importers, and dealers who are granted a federal license should have to keep meticulous records of every transaction. Their records and inventory should be subject to warrantless, random inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). If a license-holder goes out of business, all the records of past sales should be delivered to the ATF.

Before a gun store can sell a firearm to an ordinary citizen, the citizen should have to get government approval. This should apply not only to storefront sales, but also if the retailer rents a table at a gun show. As for the Internet, retailers can be allowed to advertise there, but the actual transfer of a firearm should only be allowed at the retailer’s place of business.

The purchaser should be required to answer dozens of questions certifying her background information. It is important that the government know the purchaser’s race, and whether or not she is Hispanic. Before the sale is consummated, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or a state counterpart ought to be contacted for a background check on the purchaser.

Any customer who purchases two or more handguns in a week should be automatically flagged and reported to the federal government and to local law enforcement.

Every handgun manufacturer should require handgun buyers to purchase a safe storage device for every handgun. Even if the buyer owns a gun safe, the buyer should always be forced to buy a separate locking device.

Of course, licensed manufacturers should have to put a serial number on every firearm. If someone alters or obliterates a serial number, the person should face five years imprisonment.

Felons should be forever prohibited from owning guns. They should never be allowed to hold a gun in their hands for even a few seconds. The lifetime prohibition should include non-violent felons who have been law-abiding for decades; anyone who was convicted of marijuana possession in 1971 should be presumed to be a continuing menace to society.

A lifetime prohibition should also apply to anyone who has ever been committed to a mental institution. Mental illness is not necessarily permanent, but the ban should be.

Patients prescribed medical marijuana should be banned, even in states where such use is legal. In fact, all medical marijuana cardholders should be automatically banned, regardless of whether they are current users.

Current federal gun laws provide a statutory procedure for prohibited persons to petition the ATF for a restoration of rights. For example, ATF would have discretion to restore the Second Amendment rights of a non-violent felon who has been law-abiding for many years. Congress should enact appropriations riders to prevent ATF from considering such petitions.

Only persons over 21 should be able to purchase a handgun at a gun store. That 18-to-20-year-olds defend our country with automatic weapons overseas does not mean that they can be trusted with handguns within our country. A similar law should bar rifle or shotgun purchases by persons who are under 18.

Assault rifles must be virtually banned. These, according to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power.” For example, the Russian AK-47 or the American M-16 rifles. No civilian should be able to transfer or possess any assault rifle that was not already in circulation by 1986.

Any of the older assault rifles in citizen hands should be registered with the government. If someone wants to acquire one, both the buyer and seller should have to file an application with the ATF. The tax for a transfer should be $200, to discourage ownership. In the application, the ATF should require fingerprints and two recent photographs. Local law enforcement should be notified. The FBI should conduct a background investigation, and the registration process should take months.

If the purchaser is permitted to acquire the assault rifle, she should be required to maintain records proving that the rifle is registered, and notify the government of any change in address. To take the assault rifle out of state, the owner should need written permission from ATF in advance.

Assault rifles are one type of automatic firearm, but there are many other types of automatics. All of them should be controlled just as strictly as assault rifles. A violation of the stringent laws on these guns should be a felony with up to 10 years imprisonment—and much longer in cases of multiple violations.

The above is just the minimum baseline for federal laws. States should be allowed to enact must more restrictive additional laws.

If you think that this legal system would make firearms the most-regulated common consumer product in the United States, you would be correct. Every one of the above restrictions is already federal law, and has been for decades. A few of these date back to the 1980s or 1990s. Most of them are from the Gun Control Act of 1968. The tax and registration laws on automatics are from the National Firearms Act of 1934.

You're really a lot more impressed with that article than you should be. It's basically an even worse version of that geek at science fairs who does a report about the persistence of "dihydrogen monoxide" in the bodies of people who die of all sorts of diseases and gets people to say it should be banned to make some deep point about the importance of scientific education.

Also that bit at the end about states being allowed to enact more restrictive laws is pretty rich coming in an article co-authored by these two since they've been actively lobbying for reciprocal concealed and carry to become a thing and undermine states' abilities to pass such laws.


What?

Forget it, he’s rolling.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
FavreFan wrote:
I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

Posting the article wasn't exactly a rebuttal to McNown's point in the first place either though, was it? Just saying "Gee golly, some gun control actually already does exist in this country!" is actually rather banal and pretty much treats the significant number of people who think the status quo is insufficient as the insignificant number who somehow believe no gun control exists at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

Posting the article wasn't exactly a rebuttal to McNown's point in the first place either though, was it?

Of course it was. He asked what well regulated meant and i answered in the most specific way possible.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the discussion so I edited it out to save room.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:45 pm
Posts: 689
pizza_Place: My own
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

Posting the article wasn't exactly a rebuttal to McNown's point in the first place either though, was it? Just saying "Gee golly, some gun control actually already does exist in this country!" is actually rather banal and pretty much treats the significant number of people who think the status quo is insufficient as the insignificant number who somehow believe no gun control exists at all.


No, it shows that we either don't adequately enforce the current laws or that gun regulations don't really work.

If even 50% of that article is true, then the entire gun debate is being framed on completely false assumptions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
storkinastorm wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

Posting the article wasn't exactly a rebuttal to McNown's point in the first place either though, was it? Just saying "Gee golly, some gun control actually already does exist in this country!" is actually rather banal and pretty much treats the significant number of people who think the status quo is insufficient as the insignificant number who somehow believe no gun control exists at all.


No, it shows that we either don't adequately enforce the current laws or that gun regulations don't really work.

If even 50% of that article is true, then the entire gun debate is being framed on completely false assumptions.

The entire article is true. Zeph can’t attack the article on merit so the only response left is to attack the motivation for posting it. Common political tactic by both sides.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
FavreFan wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

Posting the article wasn't exactly a rebuttal to McNown's point in the first place either though, was it? Just saying "Gee golly, some gun control actually already does exist in this country!" is actually rather banal and pretty much treats the significant number of people who think the status quo is insufficient as the insignificant number who somehow believe no gun control exists at all.


No, it shows that we either don't adequately enforce the current laws or that gun regulations don't really work.

If even 50% of that article is true, then the entire gun debate is being framed on completely false assumptions.

The entire article is true. Zeph can’t attack the article on merit so the only response left is to attack the motivation for posting it. Common political tactic by both sides.

Where did I attack the motivation for posting it? I attacked the relevance of it. It doesn't define what well-regulated means in this context, contra your suggestion that it constitutes a response to McNown here (or what "the middle" looks like, as you suggested to Brick earlier), nor does it establish any baseline for assessing strictness, contra your suggestion that it refutes people who say strict gun control laws don't exist.

I have suggested the authors themselves are writing in bad faith, which I think is clearly revealed by their suggesting that states should have the ability to enforce gun laws while working to undermine existing state laws via their support of reciprocal concealed and carry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:45 pm
Posts: 689
pizza_Place: My own
Don't be disingenuous. We all know that the vast majority of people on either side of the debate don't know that even one-third of those laws exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
I mean.. that wasn’t a rebuttal at all.

So you agree with we have significant gun control laws?

FWIW, I’m not “impressed” with the article. It had at least one typo I saw in it and it’s not all that original or clever. It’s simply a good rebuttal to uneducated people saying we don’t have strict gun control laws. That’s it.

Posting the article wasn't exactly a rebuttal to McNown's point in the first place either though, was it? Just saying "Gee golly, some gun control actually already does exist in this country!" is actually rather banal and pretty much treats the significant number of people who think the status quo is insufficient as the insignificant number who somehow believe no gun control exists at all.


No, it shows that we either don't adequately enforce the current laws or that gun regulations don't really work.

If even 50% of that article is true, then the entire gun debate is being framed on completely false assumptions.

The entire article is true. Zeph can’t attack the article on merit so the only response left is to attack the motivation for posting it. Common political tactic by both sides.

Where did I attack the motivation for posting it? I attacked the relevance of it. It doesn't define what well-regulated means in this context, contra your suggestion that it constitutes a response to McNown here (or what "the middle" looks like, as you suggested to Brick earlier), nor does it establish any baseline for assessing strictness, contra your suggestion that it refutes people who say strict gun control laws don't exist.

I have suggested the authors themselves are writing in bad faith, which I think is clearly revealed by their suggesting that states should have the ability to enforce gun laws while working to undermine existing state laws via their support of reciprocal concealed and carry.

It’s hard to take you seriously when you post the underlined above yet accuse the authors of bad faith.

If you’re trying to suggest our gun control laws aren’t strict, feel free to rebut the article’s information. I believe it would be tough though.

Of course we can always find ways to more strictly regulate something. That is not a sufficient argument that said thing is not already strictly regulated however. I believe that’s what you’re missing here.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
storkinastorm wrote:
Don't be disingenuous. We all know that the vast majority of people on either side of the debate don't know that even one-third of those laws exist.

I agree most people are ignorant about the specifics of gun control laws. It seems like it's only the people unhappy with the status quo are the ones being framed as ignorant in this situation though?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
FavreFan wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
Where did I attack the motivation for posting it? I attacked the relevance of it. It doesn't define what well-regulated means in this context, contra your suggestion that it constitutes a response to McNown here (or what "the middle" looks like, as you suggested to Brick earlier), nor does it establish any baseline for assessing strictness, contra your suggestion that it refutes people who say strict gun control laws don't exist.

I have suggested the authors themselves are writing in bad faith, which I think is clearly revealed by their suggesting that states should have the ability to enforce gun laws while working to undermine existing state laws via their support of reciprocal concealed and carry.

It’s hard to take you seriously when you post the underlined above yet accuse the authors of bad faith.

If you’re trying to suggest our gun control laws aren’t strict, feel free to rebut the article’s information. I believe it would be tough though.

Of course we can always find ways to more strictly regulate something. That is not a sufficient argument that said thing is not already strictly regulated however. I believe that’s what you’re missing here.

No, my suggestion was that it's not very convincing that we have strict gun control laws in this country because there's no definition of what strict is or a baseline to measure it. Merely listing out a litany of regulations free of context (some of which that are framed either inaccurately or disingenuously)* does not automatically equal strict. You and the authors are the ones making the positive claim about strictness, not me.

*e.g., felons' gun rights can be reinstated, accompanying purchase of a safe storage device isn't close to required across all states, and the stuff about licenses hilariously glosses over the private sale loopholes that exist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
But you’re still not offering up any type of response of substance or opinion.

Anyone can pick apart even the best written article (we both agree the link I provided was far from it.)

So I’m putting the onus on you. Do we have strict gun control laws or not? Are guns the most regulated consumer good in our country currently or are they not?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:30 am
Posts: 4113
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
FavreFan wrote:
But you’re still not offering up any type of response of substance or opinion.

Anyone can pick apart even the best written article (we both agree the link I provided was far from it.)

So I’m putting the onus on you. Do we have strict gun control laws or not? Are guns the most regulated consumer good in our country currently or are they not?

Given your non-response to my more substantive criticisms of the article, I take it you now agree that it's not just poorly written but also not "entirely true" as you suggested above.'

As for strictness, when it comes to a comparative perspective, I think our laws look less than strict than many other industrialized nations. Whether you think such a view is the most useful or not is of course up to you (as I still have no idea what standard you've been using here), but that seems like one logical place to look when attempting to evaluate strictness.

I'd also add that the existence of strict gun control laws is of course not equivalent to the achievement of strict gun control itself. One reason this may be the case is if the main body actually in charge of carrying out such regulations is underfunded, allowed to operate for great periods of time without a director, and forbidden from carrying out systematic data collection and analysis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 79877
DAC wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
It means something if you believe in the power of prayer.



So if I believe my prayers for someone or something has power then they mean something?


If I give you something I value, of course it means something even if you don't believe in it.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:45 pm
Posts: 689
pizza_Place: My own
ZephMarshack wrote:
storkinastorm wrote:
Don't be disingenuous. We all know that the vast majority of people on either side of the debate don't know that even one-third of those laws exist.

I agree most people are ignorant about the specifics of gun control laws. It seems like it's only the people unhappy with the status quo are the ones being framed as ignorant in this situation though?


The "status quo" people aren't the ones proposing radical changes. Why would their ignorance be the main issue?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34796
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
FavreFan wrote:
My god is a freshly rolled joint and some Dead on the speakers.


Sounds like heaven to me.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group