Common sense reasonable gun laws

Great Debates
321

Let’s roll back the tape a bit.

in post #278, China Guy, you said this:

In response, **ChickenLegs **responded in post #281 the following:

ChickenLegs then continued giving a brief background on the genesis of the CDC restriction against advocacy.
Then, in post #283, you responded to his interpretation as follows:

See, here you have acknowledged the way that **ChickenLegs **has framed your earlier statement in post #278, and continued with the characterization and called it “collecting data”. So initially you stated that funding for studies on gun use, ownership, risks, etc. were severely limited from the CDC. ChickenLegs corrected you and said those are not limited in any way, only advocacy is restricted. You reply saying that others disagree, and bemoan the fact that we don’t have real data.

Based on your post #283, I respond in post #285 as follows:

You continue to post in the thread, in post #287, 293, 294, 297 without mention of this line of discussion. Then, finally in post #298, you seem to take objection to the characterization from post #281, and more explicitly in post #306. Forgive me if it appears you are splitting hairs to give yourself an out. Now if you had raised this objection initially it would have been more persuasive. Now, not so much. But I will rephrase my challenge to you in light of your objection.
Then you’d be able to cite the legislation that severely limits funding for real studies on gun use, ownership, risks, etc. at the CDC, right? I challenge you. You can’t. Prove me wrong.
If you disagree with the phrasing, feel free to clarify what you actually meant in post #278. I used the exact same phrasing as you did.

Also consider the amount of funding that was reduced when the Dickey amendment was passed was less than $3M. Bloomberg alone as spent that much on gun control advocacy, candidate support, and establishing whole schools where he can push his anti-gun message. To say there is a dearth of funding is silly. Bloomberg can outspend the NRA easily.

I can wait for you to respond, if you choose to.

That’s very different. Do you think you are liable for damage or injury caused by your vehicle when it is registered to you when a non allowed person uses your car in an unauthorized manner? Yes car insurance follows the vehicle generally (exclude no fault states), but if your car is stolen and damage is done, you are not liable - though you may need to use your insurance to cover damage to your own vehicle. And regardless, firearms are not cars - the comparison is facile.

Glad he was able to do that while on duty. In CA, that would be illegal for a regular person because it would be concealed. Fixed blade knives are also prohibited by a host of state and local laws depending on blade lengths - LA for example forbids fixed blades longer than 3" which most bayonets are. In any case, yes if you have no other choice, a knife can be a viable weapon though far inferior to a firearm.

What are their responsibilities that you think are generally not borne by gun owners? You realize there are 100+ million gun owners right? You paint all of them with your “generally” so you’d have some evidence that these 100+ million generally don’t act responsibly and have some criteria for this, yes? It would be more accurate to say that the vast majority of gun owners keep their firearms without noteworthy incident. None of this “generally” bullshit.

322

Bone has addressed this along with others, but how about this:

Suppose someone steals your car and then decides to murder many people. Say they wait until a town festival is going on and the person who stole your car runs into the crowd at high speed, killing scores.

How much will the liability portion of your car insurance pay out? Suppose a family member of one of the dead festival goers sues you for leaving your car unlocked, or even leaving the keys in the ignition and making it easier for the car to be stolen? How much will they recover?

Answer to both: Zero.

323

On the other hand, I’ve got a gun. See stats for “ranged weapon”. :stuck_out_tongue:

324

The problem is, this is taken by some today to mean “gun ownership is only protected for people enrolled in a militia; i.e., the National Guard”. A stance that is so far out of context as to be virtually the opposite of what the people who wrote the amendment reasonably could have meant. I could write a small essay on the subject, and probably have in bits and pieces in different threads.

325

It seems quite obvious to me that the security of a free state is dependent on a well regulated militia, which is dependent on people who can keep and bear arms. Therefore keeping arms is required to maintain a free state.

326

The confusion comes from the term “militia”, which at the time meant the armed civilian population, but today is usually used to refer to the group or organization the armed civilians are members of.

I think the biggest problem however is the modern mindset: that of course citizens shouldn’t possess deadly weapons, and of course weapons should be reserved to a government elite. Except that’s the exact opposite of the philosophy the Founders held. They can’t see an armed population as anything but anarchy.

327

The supreme court (the guys who we appoint to decide this stuff) disagrees with you. Although there are minority opinions that disagree with the decision, the law of the land
is that the second amendment confers an individual right to own guns. You can try and spin it however you want, but until the USSC overturns the Heller decision you are going full auto at a strawman.

328

Happy New Year.

I’m not putting words into your mouth. I am saying that the proposal is so fucking ridiculous that it can only be born of a disdain for gun owners… or ignorance but you don’t seem ignorant.

This is not the first time this horrible idea has been floated on this board. The notion is to punish lawful gun owners so that they will somehow prevent criminals from using guns. Its just the most retarded idea I have ever heard.

329

What do you think of the proposals the President made today?

330

I am assuming that we will disagree and that neither of us will convince the other. I doubt there is anything you could say that will convince me that it is fair or equitable to place the cost of criminal behavior on law abiding gun owners. You are effectively making the gun owner liable for anything that ever happens with their gun after it is stolen from them and saying “but its OK because we’re going to make you get insurance”

And I don’t think I will ever convince you that you can’t shit on gun owners because they own guns (after all they can merely choose to not own guns and avoid your ridiculous rules, right?)

331

Straw purchases of guns are not allowed. Federal law prohibits straw sales.

332

Mostly reasonable.

333

Mostly?

334

They need to pin down more what defines a 'dealer". I do like that this will stop a few ‘dealers’ that dont have FFLs from selling guns, but I dont want a hobbyist to get arrested over this- say a Cowboy Action Shooter or a Collector that trades a few guns a year.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.

They need to give a minimum 'safe harbor", let us say four a year.

335

Pretty weak sauce. He’s had quite some time to come up with the Exec orders and this is the best he could do? What is telling is the comments by the talking heads on both sides. The anti gun side seems to foolishly believe these measures will do something, but they really can’t say what.

The pro gun side is spitting feathers mad about the President side stepping congress while laughing behind closed doors at the orders that drove a presidential address and a town hall later this week.

Clearly this move is in the camp of “we have to do something”. In the end nothing has really changed.

336

Dedicated thread here.

337

One of several.

338

His has the most details about the proposals in his OP.

339

True, but links were provided in other threads, so…

I note that ** ElderSign** has a very reasonable concern in this thread:

340

And where in that litany of precautions did you learn that if someone steals your gun and shoots someone else with it then you should be liable?

Well, it sounds like you want to impose standards appropriate for YOUR situation onto the rest of us. I have a kid too but I don’t have to take those extra precautions because I don’t have the same risk of electrocution, poisoning, etc.

And I am telling you that there is no other area where we assign liability the way you want to with guns. You are in effect assigning strict liability to any owner of a gun for anything that is done with that gun.

If someone steals my car and runs over a bus stop full of kids, I am not held responsible unless I am grossly negligent.

If someone steals a tool out of my shed and kills my neighbor, I cannot be sued for the losses associated with that murder.

Gun control folks keep trying to create new and novel concepts of liability especially for gun owners and then say “oh, but I have no problems with guns or gun owners, I just want them to be responsible” in a way that we don’t do for anyone else with anything else.