Another valuable contribution to the thread. Congratulations for your, uh, efforts.
You realize your zinger to posts with content ratio is about 1,000 to 1, right?
There are ways to close the “gun show loophole” without making it nigh-impossible for regular people to transfer or sell a gun occasionally. It could be as simple as a law stating “if you sell more than 5 [or 10 or 20] guns in one year then you are considered a gun dealer and must conduct background checks”. That by itself would close most of the “loopholes” that are often criticized, while allowing you to give a gun to your nephew, or sell your old revolver, without hardship.
How would you “all I know” that if you didn’t watch it?
Most people familiar with guns understand that, at gun shows (or at least the ones I’ve been to) there are lots of folks with tables who sell their guns, but aren’t considered “gun dealers”. A lot of these folks (and I have nothing against them) derive most of their income from these gun sales, but still aren’t actually considered “gun dealers”. They should be, and they should have to conduct background checks just like other gun dealers. The law can be fashioned in a way to not impact most private-party transfers.
I’m pretty sure it would have been all over the news if he had said that.
In the proposal to give/sell your gun to little Timmy, you take your gun to a firearms dealer who runs the background check or to the police. The only way that private gun sales would be “criminalized” under the proposal is if they don’t follow the law and take it somewhere to get the required background check. Who cares.
I kept hearing, “(they) want a vote.” I didn’t hear on what they would be voting. Some form of gun control, of course, but what? The Feinstein bill?
And what about all of the talk on new projects, which have to be “revenue neutral”? Was that code for “dammit, more taxes on the rich”?
It’s not reasonable.
We have guns at our hunting camp that are just camp guns. Nobody even knows who owns them anymore.
Hypothetical:
My grandfather brought back a Japanese rifle from WWII. He passed away but the gun is at our camp. I go up to the camp one weekend, which is jointly owned by my father and three uncles and give the rifle to my kid to shoot and he ends up taking it home and keeping it at his house for three years.
How many of us should go to prison?
You should have a background check to give guns to relatives.
What if your nephew is a convicted felon?
The way to do this is that you and nephew go to a gun shop. Pay the owner $15, and he runs a background check for you. Easy peasy. This isn’t as onerous as gun enthusiasts are suggesting.
My point exactly. He demands a vote as if there is even a proposal to vote on, just after he deliberately misleads with vague and confusing terminology that was designed to pander to his base and not be a meaningful discussion.
If the guns are part of the camp, I’d say whoever owns the camp. If not, one of you should go and register it.
Four people own the camp.
Register it where? With whom?
You realize that gun registration doesn’t exist and is fiercely opposed by gun supporters because it’s the first step towards confiscation, right?
What is the second step?
I realize that.
But not that, and neither do you.
Then they are presumably adults and can decide complex issues.
I’d imagine that ownership would be nebulous as long as it is only used at the camp. I assume that anything that might pass would include grandfathering in older guns like this. But ideally guns would be attached to individuals and changing that attachment would require a background check.
It’s fiercely opposed by gun supporters because they have a cartoonish view of reality and are afraid of black helicopters.
Now now. That’s not really fair or accurate.
It’s more like a graphic novel or superhero comic than a cartoon. I mean, haven’t you ever seen any of the NRAs publications?
Really? You guys just leave old guns lying around at your gun camp? Is that responsible gun ownership?
So we have a problem with criminals getting guns from gun shows w/o background checks, and you think that shouldn’t be addressed because of some rusty old communal guns at a “gun camp”? Because you can’t be bothered to have someone run a background check for the guns and pay a $15 fee?
President Obama’s proposals are well documented. Nothing vague or misleading. Republicans don’t want to vote on these, for obvious reasons. Voting for pisses off a few people, voting against is insane. Thus, they’d rather not vote. Obama, on the other hand, would like everyone to have to vote yea or nay, because when forced to take a position, most members will probably vote for these things.
Hitler.