What is your proof that there needs to be a limit? I need no such thing.
I think it is fair to state that there are significantly more privates sales taking place outside of gun shows.
I would trade national CCW for universal background checks all day long and twice on Sunday. That is compromise and win-win for both “sides”
Shouldn’t you have included a smiley with that statement? 
It really is the most baffling thing I’ve read in a while. Exactly how do you figure this to be true? Not to mention, you have essentially admitted that the Democratic Party intentionally manipulated the truth concerning the gun issue. If that is the case (which we can prove it is) then how is that Party’s opinion on the subject to be given any weight or consideration? And you’ll have a difficult time convincing any reasonable person that if the left is willing to openly lie about the gun issue that they are completely honest with the facts concerning every other issue. Like my father used to say, “a tiger doesn’t change it’s stripes”, seems like my old man was right.
So would I. I also like David Brin’s The Jefferson Rifle idea. It seems to bypass the dreaded “slippery slope” concern, allowing significant regulation of the more commonly misused weapons while guaranteeing that the least often misused weapons can never be registered or banned by the government.
Both parties have in the past used lies and distortions to get their pet legislative projects passed, alas. They just differ in what they’re willing to lie about.
Before gunbrokers.com the biggest concentration of strangers making private sales of guns to strangers occurred at gun shows. These days, the internet probably outpaces gun shows AND gun shops combined. Heck half the gun shops in this country do most of their business on the internet and the other half spend a lot of their time getting fees for accepting guns as an FFL.
Well the trade-off is a national CCW in exchange for national registry, national licensing requirements (universal background checks become redundant with a national gun license requirement). I think its a fair trade.
You take a gun safety test (like a driving test for your car), maybe you have to take the test every couple of years (can be taken at your local gun range if you like). You get a national license that will allow you to carry your weapons in all 50 states but you have to present your license whenever you want to buy a gun and you have to register the gun in your name within 30 days. If you sell your gun, you have to say who you sold it to.
The flow of guns into the criminal community will be lower than the confiscation of guns from the criminal community and the rate of gun violence will decrease.
By the standards of this board I am a gun nut (because I oppose an AWB or a cap on mazagine capacity). I’m not admitting that Democrats intentionally manipulated facts on gun issues, I am trying to convince people that that is what they are doing.
The reason politicians lie or tell the truth has less to do with their honesty and more to do with whether the facts comport with their politics. Democrats are more honest simply because the facts comport with their politics on almost every issue except gun control.
If lying about one issue undermines credibility on ALL issues then I think I could point out a few issues where Republicans lie pretty openly.
I don’t think the second amendment protects the least useful class of firearms alone. I think it protects any firearm that a state wants its citizenry to have. If you want a threshhold below that then you have to give me a reason why my second amendment rights should be infringed.
Saying you want to control gun violence by trying to ban assault weapons when handguns are responsible for 90%+ of all gun violence is like the republicans saying they want to control voter fraud by requireing voter ID when the overwhelming majority of voter fraud occurs in absentee voting.
It no longer looks like you want to control gun violence and really want to dissuade something else.
[Emphasis mine.] For interstate transfers, the guns must go through a dealer in the buyer’s state. Just making that clear for people who might think that you can buy a gun online and just have the seller ship it to you.
Have you looked at Anonymous User’s info? They list “very argumentative, loves to debate” in their bio (I interpret that as being an irritating troll) and “High school” as their occupation.
Anonymous User is a teenage. And like most teenagers doesn’t know shit about anything, but thinks they know everything.
I suggest you follow my lead and stop responding to any of their ridiculous posts.
Give them about 15 years or so when real life has slapped them around a bit.
Real knowledge comes with realizing how fucking stupid you were as a kid!
That’s not a “right”. That concept gives full power to the state to shut down the “right” any time it wants.
I will do so. Thanks!
You could have shortened this post to say “it’s actually a private sale loophole, not a gun show loophole.”
Excuse me, but I know I know nothing. I am a Socrates fanboy, so there. I know I know nothing, and I renounced all my assumptions here.
Stick around. I think you are learning that these issues are not as black and white as they seem to be.
I’d hardly call bolt-action rifles and shotguns “least useful,” as they’ve been proven in the field as useful weapons of war. Snipers to this day prefer bolt-action rifles. For whatever reason, though, they’re generally not used much in crimes. So the idea behind the proposal is keep these weapons minimally regulated and untraceable, so the citizenry will always have at its disposal effective weapons of war, while imposing more regulation on weapons like handguns which have a higher potential for creating mayhem and being misused by the criminal class.
Who said anything about bans? And handguns would be a logical choice of weapon to regulate more stringently, for exactly the reason you gave. You want a bolt-action rifle or shotgun, here you go. You want a handgun, you’ve got to pass a tough background check, show you know how to use it safely, and register it. (Of course, any such regulatory scheme would have to be shall-issue, just like current driver’s licensing programs are.)
Of course, to have any real effect this would have to be coupled with harsh penalties levied against anyone committing a crime with a gun or breaking the relevant gun laws. If illegal possession or use of a handgun carried a tough sentence, rational criminals might just decide carrying one isn’t worth it. And the irrational violent ones would soon be locked up, which is exactly where they belong.
Definition of infringement: “violation: an act that disregards an agreement or a right; ‘he claimed a violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment’”.
You have the right to bear arms. That doesn’t mean that they can’t limit the number of rounds you can have. That only means that you’re allowed to bear arms (or firearms for that matter). They could limit the magazine rounds to one if they wanted to and that’s still compliant with the second amendment because they are still allowing you to “bear arms”. They’re not “disregarding” that right by limiting you to ten rounds. So I’m not sure how limiting magazines to ten rounds is infringing the second amendment.
See if we make anything higher than ten rounds illegal, then it will be harder for criminals to acquire them. Sure, they may (and probably will) break the rules, but the point is that we’ll have less people walking around with 20-30 round magazines.
My point is, why do you need more than ten rounds? Give me a scenario where you might need more than ten and I will think about it.
It’s best to limit the number of rounds as much as you can. You want to get the job done with the least amount of rounds because why have unnecessary rounds in there? By having more rounds, you also increase the risk of having something happen that you don’t want to, so it’s best to limit them as much as you can.
How I see it, ten rounds should be plenty, because no one has explained to me why they would need more than ten.
Right - they’ll walk around with three 10-round magazines instead (which are actually more reliable than 20-30 round magazines). So the magazine ban won’t have as much positive effect as you’re hoping for, although the slight delay necessitated by reloading might slightly increase the percentage of times when a shooting is stopped by a courageous bystander tackling the shooter.
People have given you the explanation you’re asking for multiple times, in this thread and in others. You simply haven’t been listening to it.
Only if you throw both common sense and jurisprudence out the window. Also known as the “I’m not touching you, the stick is touching you!” defense. Courts tend to frown on such obvious and flimsy attempts at end-runs around existing laws, to say nothing of the many decades of case law.
That may be a point. The question is why anybody who has a command of the facts would think it an important one to make. If you ban yellow scarves, you’ll have fewer people walking around with yellow scarves. So what?
This is uninformed supposition laid on ignorant conjecture laid on faulty premise. I’m not even sure how to respond to this except that you sound a bit like a man entirely innocent of the sport of golf explaining to Tiger Woods (very patiently and with earnest gestures) why he shouldn’t have more than two clubs in his bag.
Actually, they could ban all the guns in the United States if they wanted to. It doesn’t say that we have the right to “bear firearms”, but it says we have the right to bear “arms”. Any weapon is an “arm”. So technically we could ban all the guns and still allow the right to “bear arms”.
Limiting magazines doesn’t even come close to violating the second amendment. It doesn’t say anywhere that we can’t limit the use of these arms. It just says we have the right to “bear arms”.
And ultimately, if it does violate the second amendment (which it doesn’t), we could amend that second amendment. But we don’t even come close to needing to do that. Limiting magazines is not at all in violation of the second amendment.
Also to artemis:
You really haven’t specifically given an example where ten rounds would be too few. Even if you have multiple/moving targets, you realize that with ten rounds you should be able to get one bullet on every person at the very least. And if you’re using a semi-automatic, just pull the trigger again. It’s not that hard. You seem to not be realizing that ten rounds plus a semi-automatic gun should be a very powerful weapon. Pulling the trigger three times, and you have just shot 30 bullets. So that should be plenty to defend yourself.
Now that’s how I see it. I certainly could be wrong. You just haven’t given me a specific example where ten rounds wouldn’t be enough.
Nice analogy. Personally I am reminded of my coworker, who says ‘We have to do something! We should have the same laws as Australia. They have a lot less gun crime.’ Only she has no idea what laws Australia has, nor the cultural differences between our countries.