Ah, but if there just were no guns! (:smack:)
[sarcasm]In any case, felons aren’t the real danger; it’s GUN NUTS! Camo-wearing mall ninjas who masturbate to GIFs of women fellating guns, who spend hours pointing their guns at imagined enemies with a glazed expression in their eyes as they mutter “Pwew-Pwew!”[/sarcasm]
P.S.: Only read the following if ElvisL1ves responds to this post:
He’s going to say something like “yes, that’s what gun owners really are like”
I remember the thread, but I don’t recall specifically discussing California statutes. You probably recall better than I.
Does California restrict gun show sales?
I swear I answered this in the post you were responding to. “There is no difference between a private party sale and an FFL sale of firearms in CA. All must go through an FFL, have a background check, and are subject to the 10 day waiting period.”
No one is allowed to sell a firearm in CA without the sale passing through an FFL who conducts a background check (with exceptions that I noted prior). Certain other CA specific restrictions only apply to dealer sales and not Private Party Transfer (PPT) (1 handgun in 30 days for example) but typically when people refer to gun show sales they are talking about background checks.
Would you support this nation-wide?
CA’s scheme? All other things being equal, no. What are you offering in return?
Why frame the question as a bargain? If it’s a good idea, let’s do it. Where do you get the notion that we should incorporate a bad idea to balance it out? I would say that’s just weird, except that it helps illustrate the mindset at work with the fetishist contingent.
So, is it a good idea?
If you think you’re making a point that helps support your case, you’re quite mistaken. As usual.
Unless you believe that we should be taking incremental steps towards eventually banning the private possession of firearms, no.
Then why do the opponents have to depend on filibusters to prevent anything useful from being passed, the majority notwithstanding?
Nor is it what Democrats, and other responsible adults, are after. As a self-proclaimed Democrat (which is quite doubtful, btw :dubious:), you should know that.
Now, why do you have to resort to silly lies like that one to make yourself feel better?
What about your mindset, psycho? You didn’t stub your toe today and decide you needed to stab a hobo to death, I hope. All the neighborhood kids and pets okay? A fellow who is one bad day from murder, like you, needs to be closely monitored. I don’t think it should be out of the question for you to register your location with the police and have mandatory daily check-ins.
Aren’t you late for your appointment with the school psychologist about your anger management issues, kid?
Still not seeing it.
If I want to buy a gun from a gunshop, I have to fill out a form every time I buy a firearm.
They check my background every time I buy a gun from a gunshop. How is this any less onerous than the procedure for buying amonium nitrate?
The laws you point to only applies to distributors of ammonium nitrate. You have not posted anything that would prohibit a farmer from selling some of his ammonium nitrate to a neighbor who needs some.
Not seeing how you’re not seeing it. Seems like you need to register with a gov’t agency in order to buy it.
You know what I would offer in exchange for licensing and registration (which is where universal background checks would lead).
The fact that gay marriage is a losing proposition for Republicans doesn’t mean the Democrats should not filibuster things.
What is it that you think Democrats (and other responsible adults) are not after?
I am a registered Democrat. I haven’t voted for a Republican since we invaded Iraq.
We have been on the same side on almost every other thread other than guns, GMO food, and the Keystone pipeline. We’re on the same side when it comes to the social safety net, income distribution, voter suppression, abuse of police power, discrimination, affirmative action, gay marriage, and about 80% agreement on abortion. You are to the left of me but I am much more in line with you than most of the pro-gun folks on this board.
Your ideological purity requires you to vilify anyone that disagrees with you and you thereby make the Democratic tent smaller but more fanatic. In that sense you are a teabagger.
Well, I suppose that just doesn’t seem like a huge burden to me because I only have to do it once. I give my information to the government every time I want to buy a gun.
Yes, but you know damn well that 99.9% of gun rights activists would lose their shit if they had to register their name and address to buy a gun, information which would remain in a database for some number of years (not sure what the retention time is in this case.) You are the exception.
Huh? as DA has noted several times, you are already required to provide your name and address every time you buy a gun.
You are not required to register your name and address. It gets sent to the NICS and immediately discarded upon providing a go/no-go to the gun store.
You can’t have it both ways. For the sake of this comparison, they want storing someone’s name/address/date of purchase to be “no big deal,” or “pretty much what gun owners already have to do.” But if anyone were to actually suggest that maybe we start actually doing that, gun owners get all apoplectic because it’s actually, to them, a huge fucking deal.