The NICS has always been the blocker on that model, I do not remember if it is state privacy issues or if it is federal case law that was the blocker but if I think that they were concerned that it would be used to deny employment etc… The only category which would disqualify a buyer without court action that is on the list seems to be “Unlawful User/Addicted to a Controlled Substance” but I am not sure how they determine that.
If they could prevent it from being used to deny people housing, jobs and other activities this is the type of legislation I could be talked into. It is far less nasty than bringing the unconstitutional no-fly list into the mix.
I am surprised that it was submitted by a Republican because the “gun show loophole” is really a fight around the feds controlling intra-state commerce.
I know I would only sell the rifles I inherited to people with concealed weapons permits because I couldn’t do a check privately.
So do you conceded that the lack of large numbers of criminal actions with machine guns does is not an example of successful and/or gun control legislation?
There are other forms of gun control which have proven useful. The recent attempts have either focused on cosmetic features or seriously eroded the right to do process by removing a right purely due to governmental claims without due process. They were political pandering and/or bike shedding.
Not conclusively, certainly. I do “conceded” this, happily, and I thank you greatly for helping to educate me. I got into this thread because I know a little but not much about guns, and I thought that this might be an interesting point of discussion, and I’m glad to come out of the thread with more knowledge than I had before. And I’m glad that you’ve stopped accusing me of advocating for things I never advocated for.
And I have you to thank for my brand new knowledge, so now I’ll count you as a friend.
Sounds like we agree, then, just as (by my memory) we have on most issues.
I learn a lot through debate, it may be the only way I can challenge my own ideas in a way that will actually lead to them changing.
Also I will not engage with people I don’t respect.
So while I am honored that you count me as a friend please never read my posts as coming from a point of place of anger. I embrace differences in belief unless they are being forced through law or violence on others.
I am, as is everyone, mostly ignorant about every subject and that will always be true.
Thank you to everyone on the dope for helping me challenge my own assumptions.
Who’s original birth certificate are YOU demanding?
Meanwhile, back in the article you had previously linked - In January, a federal district court judge rejected Obama’s executive privilege claim over records detailing the Justice Department and White House’s response to Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation that may have allowed as many as 2,000 firearms to pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not turn down Obama’s privilege assertion on the merits. Instead, she said authorized public disclosures about the operation in a Justice Department inspector general report essentially mooted the administration’s drive to keep the records secret.
The judge pointed out that the alleged constitutional scholar Obama had claimed Executive Privilege to hide Fast & Furious information from the public in spite of the fact that some of the information had already been made public. The judge essentially mooted most of the constitutional scholar’s phony claim.
However, We the Voters are still waiting for full disclosure of Obama’s and Holder’s actions before, during, and after the F&F debacle.
We the voters are still waiting for the ORIGINAL Birth Certificate!!! Hussien Obama was born in Africa and is a secret Muslim who is going to incorporate Sharia law right after he takes all our guns away with the UN troops poised to invade Texas!!!
you were doing it with the knowledge that “assault weapon” is a manufactured obtuse term, but still used it anyway in order to try to make an unfounded point?
I claim that the heavy regulation in all states and outright banning in some states of fully automatic weapons did not degrade the ability for a lawful citizen to defend themselves, nor did it result in only criminals having access to fully automatic weapons.
Note the quotes? Also note that I was citing stats from a state that does have a definition for term which is a vague list of features and a random ever growing list of named products?
But yes had I been the OP I would never have used the term.
Banning one subset of guns while leaving others freely available is not going to have much effect on crime. How much crime do you think was prevented by banning automatic weapons?
Banning a subset of guns based largely on cosmetic/ergonomic features while leaving functionally identical guns (without pistol grips and adjustable stocks) in circulation is going to have an imperceptible (almost imaginary) effect on crime. The assault weapons ban is one of the most retarded gun control ideas that the gun control side has presented and it keep trotting it forward because the idea of an assault weapons ban polls well with low information voters. I don’t want guns to be a partisan issue but it has become one and this is one of the few cases where the Democrats rely on and take advantage of the ignorance of their voters.
I do think its reasonable to use the machine gun registry as evidence that registration does not inevitably lead to confiscation. I mean if you were going to confiscate anything, you would want to confiscate the stuff subject to the NFA but in 80 years of registration, we have ever seen an attempt at the federal level to confiscate these weapons.
You seem to be arguing against a bumper sticker. You also misunderstand the statement “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns”
There is a pretty large difference between banning a teeny tiny sliver of firearms and banning all firearms. The bumper sticker phrase really only applies to a near total ban on guns.
Yes, after 80 years of high costs and regulation, there are fewer automatic weapons in circulation. Is THAT the objective?
Machine guns were never popular among criminals compared to handguns.
A machine guns empties its magazine in a couple of seconds. If replacing magazines is a weak point for mass shooters, then I’m not so sure that they are THAT much more dangerous.
When weren’t they rare in crime?
They didn’t actually ban the sale of new machine guns until 1986. Before that they were merely subject to registration.
How many lives do you think this ban on a tiny sliver of firearms has saved?
one way of measuring this would be to measure how many murders are committed with legally owned machine guns and compare that to how many murders are committed by illegally owned machine guns.
Then take that ratio and compare it to the ratio of murders that are committed by legally owned fireams versus illegally owned fireams.
There have only been two murders committed with legally owned firearms in the last 80 years. There have been many many more murder committed with illegally owned machine guns.
Or is reducing the number of firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens as you mention in your original post, the desired effect? I don’t think that anyone disagrees that banning a weapons reduces the prevalence of its ownership among law abiding citizens.
the gun rights side is quick to agree with the facts that they like and the gun control side is quick to agree with the facts that they like. The gun rights side tends to have the facts on their side MUCH more frequently.
