What Can Gun Control Compromise Look Like?

[Pwns]

Not every person who hears voices in their head is dangerous, and neither is every depressed teenager that plays violent shoot 'em up video games. And a lot of dangerous people can seem ostensibly normal (see Dylan Klebold).

But, should a schizo or depressed teenager be allowed to purchase a gun?

Are you stigmatizing mental health problems when you label anyone with them as a potential psychotic killer?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

The best gun control is a serious investment into our mental health services.

I really never thought I would see the day you made sense.

Congrats

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Hey, you guys wanna discuss abortion later?

[Gil Dobie]

Hey, you guys wanna discuss abortion later?

Live begins at conception, but a woman has the right to chose. Shouldn't even be a law, should just be between the woman and her Dr.

[Silenoz]

Hey, you guys wanna discuss abortion later?

Live begins at conception, but a woman has the right to chose. Shouldn't even be a law, should just be between the woman and her Dr.

But what if she is dumb?

[Gil Dobie]

Live begins at conception, but a woman has the right to chose. Shouldn't even be a law, should just be between the woman and her Dr.

But what if she is dumb?

Woman or the Dr?

[Baldy]

Any sale made at a gun show or over the internet must go through a FFL dealer inside the person's home state, period.

Not period...

Only licensed gun dealers. Gun shows and the internet are full of non-licensed dealers.

Wrong. Gun shows are for gun dealers (and the people who sell accessories). People have to pay to be able to sell their stuff at a gun show. Can you buy a gun from a private person at a gun show without a background check? I'm sure it's possible, but the last gun show I went to I was searched to make sure I wasn't packing (for obvious reasons) before I was allowed to enter. Are gun shows "full" of non-licensed dealers? Absolutely not because there is no such thing as an unlicensed dealer, and the ATF is at almost every gun show.

Hell, even a private citizen is not allowed to sell a firearm to another private citizen who lives in another state. The only "loophole" is that a private citizen may sell a firearm to another private citizen as long as they reside in the same state.

Yes, and that's why sites like GunBroker and ArmsList are so popular. Also full of non licensed gun dealers who you can purchase from without a background check. They're just classified sites and then people arrange the transaction offline.[/quote]
Good. An Autotrader for guns.
A private citizen selling his or her personal property to another private citizen. Yay for 'Merica.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

If that fetus has half a man's DNA he should get half the choice......Im all for equality

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

Jeezus Tittyfucking Chirst...

I know this has been a major talking point for the left, but there is no such thing as a gun show or internet loophole.

Any sale made at a gun show or over the internet must go through a FFL dealer inside the person's home state, period. Hell, even a private citizen is not allowed to sell a firearm to another private citizen who lives in another state. The only "loophole" is that a private citizen may sell a firearm to another private citizen as long as they reside in the same state.

How come so many people screw this up?

I purchased a gun right off the table at a gun show in Arizona...
So I'm not sure what you're talking about

Off the of my head, there are three possible reasons how or why:
1. You purchased it from a dealer who risked his license and broke the law.
2. You purchased it from a private citizen who didn't ask for ID and possibly broke the law.
3. You purchased it from a collector selling all or part of his collection and possibly broke the law.

Oh and there is a 4th one.

4. Clitz at a gun show?.

[JohnStOnge]

I think that if we want to address the issue we need to bite the bullet and ask if we want to amend the Constitution. I am a person who does believe the intent behind the Second Amendment IS indeed to prohibit the Federal government from making any laws to restrict individuals' rights to bear ARMS. And I capitalized "ARMS" because I think they were talking about ANY military weapons. At the time that included things like cannons. Now it includes things like nuclear weapons.

BTW I do not think the second Amendment prohibited STATES from restricting the right; just like it don't think the first amendment restricted prohibited STATES from having laws with respect to the establishment of religion (that's actually what Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was all about). But that's another story.

But if we're talking about the Federal government let's stop playing games and just debate amending the Constitution. That's the way we're supposed to do it.

[JohnStOnge]

And BTW, if we accept the premise that there is a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, there shouldn't be any license requirements. You shouldn't have to have a license to exercise a right.

[GannonFan]

I am a person who does believe the intent behind the Second Amendment IS indeed to prohibit the Federal government from making any laws to restrict individuals' rights to bear ARMS. And I capitalized "ARMS" because I think they were talking about ANY military weapons. At the time that included things like cannons. Now it includes things like nuclear weapons.

Man, JSO delivers, every time. Constitution protects the individual right to nuclear weapons. Awesome, dude, just awesome.

[JohnStOnge]

I am a person who does believe the intent behind the Second Amendment IS indeed to prohibit the Federal government from making any laws to restrict individuals' rights to bear ARMS. And I capitalized "ARMS" because I think they were talking about ANY military weapons. At the time that included things like cannons. Now it includes things like nuclear weapons.

Man, JSO delivers, every time. Constitution protects the individual right to nuclear weapons. Awesome, dude, just awesome.

It says "arms." What do you think that referred to at the time? Even the thing with reference to the reason for it being the need for militias. Do you not think "arms" referenced the complete suite of military weaponry?

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

[Pwns]

Sometimes I do think it's time for a constitutional convention, but of course both sides of the political divide will be absolutely terrified that the other side is going to remake the new constitution in their own image. We might be stuck with the constitution just like we're stuck with the British Imperial measurement units instead of the metric system.

[BDKJMU]

There is no WAY I would want the US Government to know how many and what kind of guns I have (if I had any, which I don't, totally hypothetical for those government spies listening/reading)...THEY are the last group I'd ever be willing to "register" my (theoretical) weapons with.

\thread

Ditto

[CID1990]

I trust myself with weapons but the rest of you **** scare the **** out of me when I think about you running around armed.

Reality is that gun control is not possible in a country where there are at least 300,000,000 guns in private hands. Barn door. Horse.


Best solution would be to lob packs of firecrackers at gun shows and NRA events and watch the fun...

It's a lot more than 300,000,000


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

I think that if we want to address the issue we need to bite the bullet and ask if we want to amend the Constitution. I am a person who does believe the intent behind the Second Amendment IS indeed to prohibit the Federal government from making any laws to restrict individuals' rights to bear ARMS. And I capitalized "ARMS" because I think they were talking about ANY military weapons. At the time that included things like cannons. Now it includes things like nuclear weapons.

BTW I do not think the second Amendment prohibited STATES from restricting the right; just like it don't think the first amendment restricted prohibited STATES from having laws with respect to the establishment of religion (that's actually what Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was all about). But that's another story.

But if we're talking about the Federal government let's stop playing games and just debate amending the Constitution. That's the way we're supposed to do it.

^^^This right here

Either amend the damn Constitution or STFU

and when we have a Constitutional convention to do it, get ready for the MOTHER of all unintended consequences

remember - each state carries the same weight -


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Col Hogan]

We don't "see" it as constitutionally protected. It IS constitutionally protected. Big difference.

I know, but many on the left will argue that the second amendment and the founding fathers weren't really envisioning weapons that could put that much lead downrange that quickly. We can debate about whether we as hypothetical gun owners are actually part of a well-regulated militia also. I'm not trying to start an argument about what the intent of the amendment was, only that it does lend itself to some grey area some 230 years later.

In the unlikely event that we have a Red Dawn situation in the US I think we'll be happy that much of the citizenry is armed.

And I’m sure our founding fathers could not envision radio, television, or the internet...

They call it “freedom of the press”...so maybe we should restrict that freedom to printing presses only...

[Chizzang]

I purchased a gun right off the table at a gun show in Arizona...
So I'm not sure what you're talking about

Off the of my head, there are three possible reasons how or why:
1. You purchased it from a dealer who risked his license and broke the law.
2. You purchased it from a private citizen who didn't ask for ID and possibly broke the law.
3. You purchased it from a collector selling all or part of his collection and possibly broke the law.

Oh and there is a 4th one.

4. Clitz at a gun show?.

Baldy,
I assure we were braking the law
in plain sight in front of 500 people all 100% sympathetic to the cause
and not the least bit concerned about "The Law"

Second:
I've been to gun shows in Montana, Arizona and Texas

and thirdly
I don't care about gun laws - that ship has sailed - and it's never coming back to port

[Col Hogan]

Why is a “compromise” even needed? Homicides continue to drop, even with gun ownership rising...

[Skjellyfetti]

Now look at mass shootings by year.

Some kind of reform is needed, but it ain't going to happen. Better to just get used to these happening every couple of months.

[CID1990]

Off the of my head, there are three possible reasons how or why:
1. You purchased it from a dealer who risked his license and broke the law.
2. You purchased it from a private citizen who didn't ask for ID and possibly broke the law.
3. You purchased it from a collector selling all or part of his collection and possibly broke the law.

Oh and there is a 4th one.

4. Clitz at a gun show?.

Baldy,
I assure we were braking the law

how fast was it going that you had to brake it?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

I think that if we want to address the issue we need to bite the bullet and ask if we want to amend the Constitution. I am a person who does believe the intent behind the Second Amendment IS indeed to prohibit the Federal government from making any laws to restrict individuals' rights to bear ARMS. And I capitalized "ARMS" because I think they were talking about ANY military weapons. At the time that included things like cannons. Now it includes things like nuclear weapons.

BTW I do not think the second Amendment prohibited STATES from restricting the right; just like it don't think the first amendment restricted prohibited STATES from having laws with respect to the establishment of religion (that's actually what Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was all about). But that's another story.

But if we're talking about the Federal government let's stop playing games and just debate amending the Constitution. That's the way we're supposed to do it.

^^^This right here

Either amend the damn Constitution or STFU

and when we have a Constitutional convention to do it, get ready for the MOTHER of all unintended consequences

remember - each state carries the same weight -


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. So glad that ain't ever going to happen.

Also glad conks have the majority so we won't be seeing some knee jerk reaction legislation that will do nothing to "solve" the issue.

Nothing would have prevented Vegas from happening...not even an outright ban where guns were confiscated.

[AZGrizFan]

Motherfuckers come to confiscate the guns that I don't have and I'm going down fighting.