2nd amendment supporters

As far as I'm concerned, they are not. I never minded having to go through them. But I believe the argument is that they do not accomplish their stated purpose, which was to keep guns out of the hands of those that should not have them.

For instance, you do not have to go through a background check to buy a black powder rifle or pistol, you can order a black powder six shooter from cabelas with no restraints at all, and, even though it's illegal to have a black powder pistol and all the needed materials to shoot it here in NY without a pistol permit, there's nothing in place to stop someone from doing it. But let's say your needs require more fire power. You're a convicted felon so going to Dick's is out, but your buddy at work has a nice Bushmaster that he's willing to part with because he needs tires for his truck. So you buy it off him and pay a little more for him to get you some ammo too. Then you talk to your Iraq war vet friend who brought back some 30 round clips as souvineirs, and they're just collecting dust, so he sells them to you. Have another friend order a new forward grip and laser sight from Cheaper than Dirt, and you now have a very servicable assault rifle that the authorities don't know anything about, and as long as you never get caught, nobody cares, but on the day you get fired from your job and find out your wife is leaving, it doesn't matter anymore, you just shot up everyone at work and a few cops too. No law in place could have stopped you from doing it. There are only two things that could stop you--either all guns magically disappear from the earth, or someone else with a gun reacts decisively.

 

The question of: That question I thought, as stated, was unfair because if I left my reply at a simple "yes or no" it wouldn't have communicated the most likely real world reaction IF the hypothetical of little to no gun violence were accomplished in real life. A real world response would be neither a "yes" or "no" to the existence of a gun debate.
---
Originally Posted by the Nexus
Perhaps I should have left it at the first question, which you seem to have accidently passed over: If there were little or no gun violence, would there still be a debate?
---

^That was the question you were referring too right? Because that's the one I was responding too initially when you said I missed it.

 

Thats a very valid point

 

You've just addressed a main issue about HOW and WHY previous back round check attempts fail.

1. They don't cover straw purchases among individual to individual transactions.

(I believe one should have a license to sell or gift weapons like that to begin with an a back round check needs to be issued even in those circumstances)


Context update: When I said I'm for back round checks, I meant that consistently, in areas in terms of in-store purchase, online purchases, and what is being called "straw purchases".

To me any previous failure of keeping guns out of the hands of the bad people have been a failure of legal consistency country-wide because I don't think that's ever really been tried and tested.

 

If you think that adding more layers of paperwork to the situation will make a difference, then by all means go for it. I think you have a promising career in politics!

Edit: For the record, and since nobody is asking, I think the solution is in technology. It is possible to make a gun that will only fire when held by it's owner, as well as guns that record every firing incident. Naturally, there would be growing pains and a lot of detraction, but that would mostly come from the older farts like me.

 

Haha, ya know that thought has entered my mind. But I realized I preferred to think of myself as a fact checker or some common citizen that can move the political dialogue along respectfully because I don't tend to go into personal attacks when debating, I stick to facts and common sense as much as possible, because in the end that's what matters. (heck I read pdf legislation as a hobby, which is more than some actual congressmen-whether they're in the house or senate-do)


Also, funny you mention that technological aspect of next generation guns, I totally agree that is something the gun industry and this country should look into and start marketing.

Granted it's the software and computer in the guns that allows for that feature to work, meaning it can be hacked, but it's a huge step in the right direction and the feature itself is just cool. It would also reduce the # of gun accidents at home, where children sometimes get a hold of their parents gun and start playing with it.

 

I have an old WWII rifle. It was super cheap and fun to shoot. I'm a vegetarian so I mainly like to blast old cans and large fruit and gourds.

 

I have to say, one of my favorite things to do is vaporize watermelons with my .270. Tannerite targets are fun too.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

I like shooting bottles of water. They hop likr 15 feet in the air. I should mention I'm shooting a 30.06

 

What is funny about them tannerite targets, is that many states are considering them an explosive ordinance and its illegal, and a shooting range owner told me so , yet he still continues to sell them, and its a big time one too. Although here you can get a license to buy and make them (along with other explosive ordinances like fireworks) from the fire chiefs. He refused to admit there was such a license, acted very hostile towards me, and hung up. he said "it must be true because you read it online" I responded

"yes , if its from the ohio revised code website...run by the government"

In other words, he was selling them illegally, and doesn't want anyone to know

 

Or he suspected his phone line was tapped...and you just weren't picking up on it.

 

If that were the case it was pretty stupid for him to say yes we sell tannerite targets

 

I support the Right to Bear Arms. Even with semi/fully automatic guns.

 

I support the right to bear arms and exercise it regularly.

Whoever posted that the Europeans are so adamantly opposed to our rights here because they have been conditioned to accept authority as who 'hands down' their rights and look to authority for protection, hit it dead on.

Strict gun regulations such as the UK and Australia models will not even begin to work here. That would get people fighting. As it is now, we are hoping that we can work our grievances out democratically. Just because we have guns does not mean we are all blood thirsty and want to destroy our cities fighting the government.

And we already have background checks. Anything further than what we have now is a federal registry disguised as background checks. Which is illegal.

 

exactly Ironically I wonder what they would do for the older guns I saw that have no serial number? Today in the gun shop while looking for a cheap shotgun or .22 rifle to save up for, and I saw a jc higgins 16 gauge bolt action, no serial number because of its age, the same for a western field 12 gauge. if they sold 16 gauge I might of saved up for the cheaper higgins, but I think now I will save up for the westernfield, because they sell 12 gauge ammo

 

Why not just get a $300 mossberg? At least you will know it will work during crunch time.

 

they don't sell any of the 300 dollar mossbergs at my local gun store, besides I have heard good things about westernfield

 

oh and also westernfield was made by mossberg and a bunch of other gun companies of good reputation

 

I think it was a 536 which is the same as a mossberg 500

 

Actually no, the backround check requirement isn't required consistently across the nation, online, and in straw purchases. (There have also been many investigations of journalists who have gone to gun shows and did not get asked for backround checks)