Poppycock. If gunowners compromise and give in to capitulate to gun control advocates on “Assault Weapons,” they will just demand capitualtion on the othe rmatters.
There go handguns, hello licensing and registration, and then total firearm bans followed by door-to-dorr gun sweeps using the licensing and registry list as a guide.
I’ve heard Democarats calling for this for over a decade, asking for things we already have.
“Criminals shouldn’t be able to buy guns!”
Check. Gun Control Act of 1968.
“People Shouldn’t Be Able To Buy Machineguns!”
Mostly checked: the National Firearms Act of 1934 severely restricted access to fully-automatic firearms, and it continues to this day. The sneaky Hughes Amendment to the Gun Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 “froze” the machinegun regisrty, driving already expensive firearms into astronomical price ranges.
There have been 2 violent crimes committed inthe U.S.A. with legally-owned and registered fully-automatic firearms since the passage of the NFA in '34: one was a dirty cop who used department connections to obtain one to use in a murder-for-hire, one was an Ohio physician who legally purchased one (jumping through all requisite hoops) just to kill his soon-to-be-ex-wife with it.
“There should be background checks!”
Check. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, an FBI administered database of prohibited person according to the Gun Control Act of 1968. Several sates maintain and operate their own state-level system as well, or in lieu of the National system.
“The Gun Show Loophole!”
Their is no gun show loophole. Every licensed dealer must have each customer fill out an ATF form 4473, and submit it to either state or federal NICS for approval before any firearm transaction can take place.
Private citizens are allowed to sell their own private property, and can do it on-line, through a newspaper ad, or even pay admission to a gun show and do it there. Why do it at a gun show? Because that’s where a lot of potential customers looking to buy a gun will be.
There is currently no federal regulation requiring that private citizens run NICS checks on other private citizens. This allows for considerable leeway for “straw purchasers” (people who can legally purchase firearms acting as front-men for criminals and criminal organizations).
“That should be changed! Every firearm transaction should be tracked!”
Theoretically, I tend to agree. In practice, I don’t trust people who call for increased gun control who don’t know basic facts and figures about firearm fatality stats.
To wit: “The assault weapons ban should be reinstated!”
Most gun control nitwits don’t even know what the fuck an “assault weapon” is, or the difference between an assault rifle and an “assault weapon.” Why in the hell would I ever trust my rights to someone who don’t even know what they are?
The so-called “assault weapons,” according to BATF testimony before the U.S. Congress, account for less than 2% of violent crimes committed with a firearm. To me, that is not a reasonable justification for enhanced regulation of these firearms.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html
9 innocent bystanders shot by police. I wonder if this is a record.
Isolated incident, but somebody’s alarm bells should have gone off just looking at the guy.
My state has had licensing and registration for pretty much ever. No confiscation, no bans. Get a grip, Alabama.
Absolutely. The disconnect is between:
Reported. The name’s not “Alabama.” Nice attempt to slide a stealth insult in there.
Second: whoosh. The Slippery Slope argument you used about capitulating to Republicans is, as noted in my response, the same slippery slope argument gun owners use against more gun control. Which is routinely dismissed be gun control advocated as paranoid.
Your state may have registration and licensing and never have had any bans/confiscations. Not all states can boast the same record. Even countries. Many of which gun control advocates like to trot out as a prime example of the sort of gun control they’d like to have.
And then they have the nerve to call us gun owners paranoid. :smack:
You are not correct, unless we’re now twisting the meaning of the words.
“Licensing” refers to the idea that you have to have a license to purchase a firearm, not to carry one. A licensing scheme would be something like Illinois’ requirement to have a FOID card in order to purchase a firearm. A license to carry a concealed weapon is the norm, with only a few exceptions, and is not what is usually meant when discussing gun control measures.
“Regisration” refers to the idea that you, personally, have to go to the local law enforcement agency and personally show them your firearm so that they can get you name, address, vitals, the serial number of the gun, etc. You do not have to do that. However, Alabama does retain the records of your purchase in perpetuity, as do most states. Pennsylvania knows exactly what firearms I own, something I’m not too happy about, but it’s the same policy as Alabama.
As states go, Alabama is pretty gun-friendly. You made it sound like it was New York City, when in fact it’s not even as tough as Texas, and approximately on par with Pennsylvania. The laws aren’t nearly as tough as you think they are.
So, let me get this straight. You paint UHC as something people need, something so vital that Dems should STFU about guns forever and always to achieve…but if it’s that vital to the welfare of the populace, why on earth would it be something that Dems have to compromise to get? Shouldn’t it being vital to constituents’ welfare be sufficient reason for Republicans to vote for it?
See, that’s the sort of thing that makes people wary of trying to compromise with the GOP…if someone is willing to gum up the works on something people need just to get more leeway on something they want, it becomes really, really hard to trust them to keep up their side of a compromise. You want compromise? First, prove that you can be trusted to keep up your side. Stop being obstructionist on things that are in your constituents’ best interests purely for the sake of being obstructionist. Pass UHC, or at least stop trying overturn the parts of it that are already passed. Then we can talk about trading guns for marriage equality or abortion.
it’s interesting you would say that in that way, because that applies to the Democratic Party when it comes to guns. Do you know how many laws the Democrats have tried to append unrelated gun-control laws to in order to kill them, or to get it passed when they could never do it openly? Do you have any idea how little they are “trusted to keep up their side” when it comes to guns?
The well is long since poisoned when it comes to guns, and in this case it can be certain that the blame is with the people who have a record of actually taking things away, not the people who use hyperbole to make sure that such a thing never happens again.
I suppose there is some “in” joke here I do not understand, regarding places I have lived over the years.
But as long as you bring up geographical location as an issue, fine - let’s go with it.
Here is an article from Richard Florida - Senior Editor at The Atlantic and Director of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto.
Some highlights from his article:
"*What about politics? It’s hard to quantify political rhetoric, but we can distinguish blue from red states. Taking the voting patterns from the 2008 presidential election, we found a striking pattern: Firearm-related deaths were positively associated with states that voted for McCain (.66) and negatively associated with states that voted for Obama (-.66). Though this association is likely to infuriate many people, the statistics are unmistakable. Partisan affiliations alone cannot explain them; most likely they stem from two broader, underlying factors - the economic and employment makeup of the states and their policies toward guns and gun ownership.
Firearm deaths were far less likely to occur in states with higher levels of college graduates (-.64) and more creative class jobs (-.52).
Gun deaths were also less likely in states with higher levels of economic development (with a correlation of -.32 to economic output) and higher levels of happiness and well-being (-.41).
And for all the terrifying talk about violence-prone immigrants, states with more immigrants have lower levels of gun-related deaths (the correlation between the two being -.34).
And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.
The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed*."
So yeah, I guess your snide slur about my location might be some kind of damned-Yankee, Northern Liberal Democrat inside joke inference - but statistics seem to show that having a dimwitted red-headed cousin playing the banjo on bridges is more likely the areas you should be most concerned with.
Which, speaking very broadly, are the areas where guns are a culture and not just a tool, sport or hobby.
You mean kind of like they make it a constitutional amendment that says something like “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Gun control is not about guns, it is about control. Most of the “gun nuts” aren’t really fighting about guns, they are fighting for individual freedom.
This thread is so full of misinformation it’s giving me a headache. There are a few good posts, particularly #82 by ExTank. I just don’t have the time or the heart to start on picking things apart, but for good, honest, real information, take a look at the PDF at http://gunfacts.info/.
I’d like to see Bloomburg lead by example and take the guns away from his body guards. (And not just his official while-in-office body guards – his private guys too.) That would convince me he is sincere.
I meant that people who live in states with very liberal (in the literal sense, not the political-party sense) gun policies (like Alabama) have way too much paranoia about registering their firearms. Granted, there may be historical reasons that fear is justified.
But there’s the rub. Why doesn’t the Deep South have super-tight gun control already? A bunch of white bureaucrats getting to black-ball the self-defense of a sizable black minority? I’d think your granddaddies would have been all over that!
Oh, wait, it’s because your state governments are so corrupt no one, white or black, can afford to let them regulate guns. Gotcha.
And you have to have super-low taxes so they never have the budget to build a super-effective [del]army[/del] state militia with which to oppress you. And just in case, you’d better keep the economy low-functioning and the people poor, just so there’s less to rob, right?
Really, these right-wing positions make sense if you start with the assumption that state governments are the enemy and oppressor. Too bad the right wing of state politics is neo-Nullifier, and would devolve more power to the states to abuse their citizens, huh? 
The problem is that some Americans are culturally prejudiced against guns, they don’t know gun laws because guns are not part of their life or the life of anyone they know.
We need second amendment outreach, we need everyone comfortable and informed about guns. That will cure the culture problem.
A 20 minute video addressing that: No Guns for Negroes
Gun control started because Reagan and other California residents were terrified of negroes with guns.
I’ve read that Atlantic article before, and I don’t think that’s what it says.
The popular understanding of the Second Amendment is simplistic: No individual has an inalienable right to firearms; the right rests in the people collectively, and can be denied to an individual. Private gun ownership may be good policy, because there are bears in the woods apparently. (Whatever happened to the rugged Social Darwinists, and “sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you?”) An unrestrained gun trade is actually dangerous to the public welfare, and when someone points this out, you go and hide behind an interpretation of the Constitution worthy of a six-year-old. This needs to be corrected, clearly and full-throatedly. The public welfare is at risk.
When you figure out why that belief is seen as paranoid, you’ll understand why the rest of us believe the state should know what guns you own
Sure it does.
Seems clear that the modern gun control movement started right there, not in some backwards southern state but in California.