Background checks for gun purchases?

[NLXSK1]

How, exactly do you figure that Obama is "trying to change the 2nd Amendment"?

And I think you will see that the NRA's intransigence and unwillingness to join in attempts to slow this sort of trend will reveal them for what they are - a master lobbying object for the arms industry. This battle will cost them dearly and afford Obama even more political power.

I am not sure if you are aware but in the last month the NRA gained over a quarter million... Yes, 250,000 members.

You want to re-think your position?

 

[rooky1985]

And you figure that it is radical to want large magazines made illegal and it is radical to expect national background checks and curtail the easy exchange of weapons at weapons shows.

Limiting residents to a 7 round mag is quite radical IMO. National background checks should be done and a waiting period for impulse buyers is not a bad idea, but these changes do not affect constitutional rights. The fact that there are already an immense amount of weapons that have a higher capacity than 7 rounds makes it a futile battle IMO.

 

[rooky1985]

How, exactly do you figure that Obama is "trying to change the 2nd Amendment"?

And I think you will see that the NRA's intransigence and unwillingness to join in attempts to slow this sort of trend will reveal them for what they are - a master lobbying object for the arms industry. This battle will cost them dearly and afford Obama even more political power.

Power comes with money, wouldn't he be shooting himself in the foot persay?

 

[canndo]

It has been stated and demonstrated with data from Australian and Great Britain that as you reduce the number of weapons you reduce gun crime while violent crime rises. What you are trading is freedom to defend yourself for a greater level of danger that society will beat you to death with a table leg. "An armed society is a polite society." You tilt the playing field toward brute force and disadvantage women and the elderly as they cannot fight back physically.

You are giving up freedom for the illusion of security.

My constitutional right is to keep and bear arms as stated in the bill of rights. It does not say anything about defending myself by any means. Grenades and such are area of attack weapons, it seems like a pretty clear line to draw. However, if you wanted to push the argument I would be more in favor of allowing all weapons rather than no weapons.

What I dont want is to give my government yet another way to track me, to make me a criminal through omission or ignorance, and possibly later down the line make me a target of either my government or someone else due to my weapons or lack thereof.

Now you are reduced to the same old NRA talking points. What happens with the gun worshipers (I don't label you one by the way) is that they take a cue from a discussion and then switch gears in hopes that the original argument will go away. Nowhere have I advocated the confiscation of all firearms from the American Public. Nowhere have I demeaned gun owners by claiming that they are all hunters or that they have no right to self protection. You have brought in "the polite society" but your argument is seriously flawed by recent events. We are the most heavily armed society in the world and yet, school shootings, kindergarden killings, theater mass killings are not the hallmark of a "polite society".

I find it intersting that the right sides with "disadvantaged women and the elderly" when it comes to arming them but when it comes to feeding them and providing them with reasonable and reasonably priced health care, they can go fend for themselves. Strikes me as a bit disingenuous considering that those classes of folk are far more in danger of malnurishment and easily cured diseases than they are of being in a risky positions where they can shoot themselves out of trouble.

I asked you why you drew the line where you did, why not fully automatic weapons? Why not grenades? I am truely interested in why you opt for the variety of weapons you do and not others. It seems as though this is rather arbitrary. If it is arbitrary than why is the limitation of semi-automaitc weapons any more arbitrary? why is limiting all handguns more arbitrary? Others find those lines reasonably drawn.

I don't want your government to be offered another way to track you either. I am not in favor of registering of firearms in any way.

 

[canndo]

Limiting residents to a 7 round mag is quite radical IMO. National background checks should be done and a waiting period for impulse buyers is not a bad idea, but these changes do not affect constitutional rights. The fact that there are already an immense amount of weapons that have a higher capacity than 7 rounds makes it a futile battle IMO.

Why is that radical? how about 12 rounds? 23 rounds? 41 rounds? What will a national background check accomplish what are we checking for? How is a limit of a 5 round clip or magazine a violation of your 2nd amendment rights?

 

[canndo]

Power comes with money, wouldn't he be shooting himself in the foot persay?

Not at all, he gets little money from the NRA. He derives a great deal of power presently from the bully pulpit and will derive even more should he manage to get some of his gun control proposals passed. In fact he will get a great deal of power if the House, along typicly party lines, defeats his proposals. The Republicans are as usual, politicaly tone deaf. They don't yet understand the power of a shot dead child who wanted to be a doctor and paints as a hobby. the right uses children while claiming Obama is hiding behind them. They have no use for children and show it in every political move they make but in so doing they alientate more and more of what they consider their moralistic- family value base.

they can either go along, limiting what they consider the worst of Obama's proposals or they can dig in their heels again and risk the loss of the house in two years.

 

[NLXSK1]

Now you are reduced to the same old NRA talking points. What happens with the gun worshipers (I don't label you one by the way) is that they take a cue from a discussion and then switch gears in hopes that the original argument will go away. Nowhere have I advocated the confiscation of all firearms from the American Public. Nowhere have I demeaned gun owners by claiming that they are all hunters or that they have no right to self protection. You have brought in "the polite society" but your argument is seriously flawed by recent events. We are the most heavily armed society in the world and yet, school shootings, kindergarden killings, theater mass killings are not the hallmark of a "polite society".

I find it intersting that the right sides with "disadvantaged women and the elderly" when it comes to arming them but when it comes to feeding them and providing them with reasonable and reasonably priced health care, they can go fend for themselves. Strikes me as a bit disingenuous considering that those classes of folk are far more in danger of malnurishment and easily cured diseases than they are of being in a risky positions where they can shoot themselves out of trouble.

I asked you why you drew the line where you did, why not fully automatic weapons? Why not grenades? I am truely interested in why you opt for the variety of weapons you do and not others. It seems as though this is rather arbitrary. If it is arbitrary than why is the limitation of semi-automaitc weapons any more arbitrary? why is limiting all handguns more arbitrary? Others find those lines reasonably drawn.

I don't want your government to be offered another way to track you either. I am not in favor of registering of firearms in any way.

I stated quite clearly that I drew the line at area of attack weapons.

I stated that I would side with all weapons rather than no weapons as well.

You misrepresent my positions on feeding them and providing them with healthcare. You seem to keep thinking that Obamacare is going to lower costs despite absolutely no indication or data that it will do that. These issues are not related to defense however. Why do you feel the need to feed and provide healthcare for women and the elderly but take away their protection?

BTW, I am not an NRA member, I dont read their talking points, I draw my own conclusions from the available data.

 

[canndo]

I am not sure if you are aware but in the last month the NRA gained over a quarter million... Yes, 250,000 members.

You want to re-think your position?

Nope. I don't care if the NRA gained twice that, the NRA no longer represents their consituancy and they have proven to be ineffectual when it comes to vetting candidates, placing them in office, denying office to their opposition or expelling their "enemies".

 

[NLXSK1]

Nope. I don't care if the NRA gained twice that, the NRA no longer represents their consituancy and they have proven to be ineffectual when it comes to vetting candidates, placing them in office, denying office to their opposition or expelling their "enemies".

Ok, well I have no idea how you imagine the battle costing them dearly when they have gained an overwhelming number of members since the shooting...

 

[rooky1985]

Why is that radical? how about 12 rounds? 23 rounds? 41 rounds? What will a national background check accomplish what are we checking for? How is a limit of a 5 round clip or magazine a violation of your 2nd amendment rights?

7 rounds is radical because it then makes almost all semi-automatic gun designs illegal without special mags. I have used an AR platform to help curtail the hog epidemic in my area, the higher capcity allows the hunter to remove several hogs from a heard. With a bolt action rifle you have to regain sight picture and they are gone by then. This predertimed notion that an assault weapon is an AR-15 is nonsense, all of my semi-auto weapons will accept high capacity mags. From a ruger 10-22 to a 9mm glock, this strict ban on capacity is an attempt to reduce carriers to revolvers.

 

[rooky1985]

Not at all, he gets little money from the NRA. He derives a great deal of power presently from the bully pulpit and will derive even more should he manage to get some of his gun control proposals passed. In fact he will get a great deal of power if the House, along typicly party lines, defeats his proposals. The Republicans are as usual, politicaly tone deaf. They don't yet understand the power of a shot dead child who wanted to be a doctor and paints as a hobby. the right uses children while claiming Obama is hiding behind them. They have no use for children and show it in every political move they make but in so doing they alientate more and more of what they consider their moralistic- family value base.


they can either go along, limiting what they consider the worst of Obama's proposals or they can dig in their heels again and risk the loss of the house in two years.

IMO Obama will not gain anything from punishing a thriving gun market in a sub par economy. Money always wins, and if you think the people as a whole are backing these bans you may want to take another look.

 

[canndo]

I stated quite clearly that I drew the line at area of attack weapons.

I stated that I would side with all weapons rather than no weapons as well.

You misrepresent my positions on feeding them and providing them with healthcare. You seem to keep thinking that Obamacare is going to lower costs despite absolutely no indication or data that it will do that. These issues are not related to defense however. Why do you feel the need to feed and provide healthcare for women and the elderly but take away their protection?

BTW, I am not an NRA member, I dont read their talking points, I draw my own conclusions from the available data.

So a fully automatic weapon - a weapon that can discharge multiple consecutive rounds with a single pull of the trigger is an attack weapon yet one that discharges only a single round with each pull of the trigger is not an "attack" weapon. I fail to see the distinction. My ability to ensure a kill (given control over my weapon) through multiple rounds sent in the same general direction is does not lend more to my defense than my needing to repeatedly pull the trigger (given that same ability to control the weapon).

Should a group of people somewhat close together attack me, would I not be at least a bit more defensively positioned with a grenade launcher?


I simply don't see your distinction. Now the same distinction is lost on me between a revolver and a semi-automatic weapon.

My point is that your differentiation between one form of firearm and another is as nonsensical as mine. One could as easily state that knives are defensive weapons only. I am trying to get you to agree that your deliniation is arbitrary.

 

[NLXSK1]

So a fully automatic weapon - a weapon that can discharge multiple consecutive rounds with a single pull of the trigger is an attack weapon yet one that discharges only a single round with each pull of the trigger is not an "attack" weapon. I fail to see the distinction. My ability to ensure a kill (given control over my weapon) through multiple rounds sent in the same general direction is does not lend more to my defense than my needing to repeatedly pull the trigger (given that same ability to control the weapon).

Should a group of people somewhat close together attack me, would I not be at least a bit more defensively positioned with a grenade launcher?


I simply don't see your distinction. Now the same distinction is lost on me between a revolver and a semi-automatic weapon.

My point is that your differentiation between one form of firearm and another is as nonsensical as mine. One could as easily state that knives are defensive weapons only. I am trying to get you to agree that your deliniation is arbitrary.

Did you read the sentence I wrote right underneath that? The one where I am agreeing that it is arbitrary but stating I would rather have all weapons rather than no weapons?

If you are drawing lines, what would you do? Make every handgun a 1 shot device? All rifles bolt action? Your line is just as arbitrary as mine.

however, the constitution does not make any distinction. And the constitution is a document designed to limit the power of the government, not the people.

 

[canndo]

IMO Obama will not gain anything from punishing a thriving gun market in a sub par economy. Money always wins, and if you think the people as a whole are backing these bans you may want to take another look.

What bans are you talking about? the ban on larger magazines? I have been looking and this issue remains very hot. It remains hot to the point that republicans who conventionaly take a hard line against any gun control at all are softening. This is an indicator. If Obama's plans come to fruition and the rank and file gun owner is not materialy affected then you will see as I have projected, another reductdion in the already waining power of the Republican party - another hard line they have taken that will backfire just as the fiscal cliff fiasco diminished them and just as the debt limit will put them in even more of a mess.

 

[cannabineer]

I stated quite clearly that I drew the line at area of attack weapons.

I stated that I would side with all weapons rather than no weapons as well.

You misrepresent my positions on feeding them and providing them with healthcare. You seem to keep thinking that Obamacare is going to lower costs despite absolutely no indication or data that it will do that. These issues are not related to defense however. Why do you feel the need to feed and provide healthcare for women and the elderly but take away their protection?

BTW, I am not an NRA member, I dont read their talking points, I draw my own conclusions from the available data.

All weapons are attack weapons. It's the distinction between arms and armor. cn

 

[NLXSK1]

All weapons are attack weapons. It's the distinction between arms and armor. cn

Yes, but not all weapons are AREA OF ATTACK weapons...

You know, things that go boom in a 10' radius....

 

[canndo]

7 rounds is radical because it then makes almost all semi-automatic gun designs illegal without special mags. I have used an AR platform to help curtail the hog epidemic in my area, the higher capcity allows the hunter to remove several hogs from a heard. With a bolt action rifle you have to regain sight picture and they are gone by then. This predertimed notion that an assault weapon is an AR-15 is nonsense, all of my semi-auto weapons will accept high capacity mags. From a ruger 10-22 to a 9mm glock, this strict ban on capacity is an attempt to reduce carriers to revolvers.

a 7 round limit does not conflict with the 2nd Amendment

 

[canndo]

Yes, but not all weapons are AREA OF ATTACK weapons...

You know, things that go boom in a 10' radius....

Yet your line is drawn at fully automatic weapons as well.

 

[cannabineer]

a 7 round limit does not conflict with the 2nd Amendment

Isn't it an infringement? cn

 

[NLXSK1]

Yet your line is drawn at fully automatic weapons as well.

Not really. You can currently own fully automatic weapons. We agreed in the previous post that it was arbitrary, why are you picking peanuts out of shit still?