change you can beleive in

[Drem]

lol no

[Gypsiyee]

Should we test voters for the ability to name more than 1 of the candidates before they cast their vote?

um, yes please.

[Tuggan]

What possible use does a civilian have for owning an automatic weapon?

Blowing up watermelons with R. Lee Ermey and the Nuge, duh.

[Minrott]

Minrott, you missed my earlier explanation of that issue. Basically, I argued for no restrictions whatsoever on buying or owning guns (beyond the felon/crazy person limitation, obviously). It was a restriction from storing the weapons at your home, car, place of business, etc. If you didn't want to take the test, you could store the guns at a firing range or other similar location, and use it there to your heart's content.

But, given the obvious risk for injury to life and limb to people who can't be bothered to actually keep their guns in a safe manner (don't bother with trigger locks, etc. etc. etc.), it just seems like a combination of requiring someone to prove they know how keep guns safe plus harsher penalties to NOT doing so (since you proved you at least should know better) is not an unreasonable restriction, since if you don't want to bother, you can, as I said, keep your firearms at some approved storage location.

-Arlos

No, I didn't miss it. You're arguing for storage laws, which regulates how a person may use his arms. That is a restriction, it would be a new restriction. The problem Arlos, isn't that we don't have regulations telling people where and how they may store firearms. We already have "harsher penalties" for not doing so safely. Look into State laws on the liability one incurs if they store weapons within reach of children. Anyone who knows what the penalties for those laws are, won't risk it. The problem is people who don't care about the law, or the penalties for violating them.

snip

My comment had absolutely nothing to do with why they are sold, I was simply stating what an automatic weapon was. However to this point, not a single of the pro gun people has answered a simple question.



What possible use does a civilian have for owning an automatic weapon?



In regard to gun shows not being a loophole. Think again, that is exactly what it is. If you want to purchase a weapon, you need to have a background check done UNLESS you purchase it at a gun show in which you can completely bypass the requirement. This allows you to simply bypass the law which by definition, is a loophole in the law. Also you know damn well that not every transaction taking place at a gun show is "legal". There are a considerable number of shady deals worked out at them where individual run a business of selling weapons to those who are not able to legitimately buy them from a gun shop.

This is simply not true. You can't "slip Bubba a $20" and get out of a back ground check. If a FFL dealer is selling firearms, whether at his storefront or at a gunshow, he is required by law to do Federal NICS back ground checks. He isn't going to risk the multiple $100k fines, the 10 year federal prison terms, for a "few extra dollars." FFL dealers are some of the most audited regulated business people in the country. The BATFE is relentless in their pursuit of fraudulent FFL dealers, and punish them to the full extent of the law for even minor paperwork mistakes. As I explained above, if you see a gun bought at a gunshow with no back ground check, then it was a private transaction between two individuals. Congress doesn't have the power to regulate it any further than what the law says about whether the buyer can legally own a firearm: IE not a felon, over 18, no domestic assault, etc. If you sold a car to a habitual drunk driver, is it your responsibility to do a background check on him? Of course not. Even so, many many private individuals who buy and sell firearms ask for ID, or refuse the sale if it doesn't appear legitimate.

Simple solution, go to the next bubba at the gunshow who is not an FFL dealer and just buy it from him, he wont require any pesky background check and you can buy anything. BTW, did you know that it is illegal to sell tobacco or alcohol to a minor? I am not talking about just at a store, but even on the street. If a minor comes up to you and asks to buy your 6 pack, it is against the law to sell it to them even though this is a private translation between 2 individuals. There is a long standing tradition of government over site on the sale of items between private parties, weapons purchases should certainly not be excluded from this. Those laws are there to protect citizens of this country not to make your life harder.

Lets take this example. A multiple murder escapes from prison and is on the run. He wants to get a weapon. All he has to do is find a gun show with someone willing to sell to him no questions asked. Being a fairly easy thing to do, your escaped multiple murder now has a weapon and ammo to do with as he pleases. The law attempts to protect us from this, but due to that loophole, he is now on the street armed. If gunshows simply were required to follow the same law every gun shop is required to follow, this would have been avoided.

No one has answered your question, because it's not a very good one. And frankly, I'm not arguing for automatic weapons. They're legal, the ones that exist, and in the history of the NFA registry (1933 to 2009) only 1 single crime has ever been committed by the lawful owner of one of these weapons, and he was a police officer that killed an informant with a registered Mac10. Why does anyone need one? Why don't they need one? Owners of NFA items are the most law abiding people on the planet. For fuck's sake, the FBI has their fingerprints, the ATF has their photo ID, and their county Sheriff knows (by signing their forms) exactly what they own!

You obviously don't understand the catch 22 of the "loophole" discussion either. If a person wishes to do an illegal transaction at a gunshow, but the dealers won't allow it, you assume they'll simply go to the next dealer who will allow it. If they're going to consciously break the law now, why in the fuck would another law banning gunshows make them more likely to comply? That's just silly. So is your example. The last thing an escaped convict is going to do is go to a gunshow to find a gun. A gun show full of cops, full of people looking at each other, recorded by video more often than not, and routinely trolled by the ATF. I think what he's going to do is break into your neighbors house and steal a gun. Which is illegal, what a surprise, the murderer didn't obey the law. Why do you think another law will stop him?

Frankly I don't care. I'm not here to debate what I "need" or what "should" be right. I saw some ignorant foolishness being said about firearms and firearm law, and felt like commenting on that. I know I'll never change anyone's mind here, and I don't really care to.

Passing a gun safety test, is a new restriction whether you believe so or not.

Not trying to pick on anyone but this is not true. I've got a friend of mine whom I'm trying to talk out of buying a hand gun (he only wants to buy it because another friend asked to go to a fireing range). He has gone to a couple of gun shops and talked to them about the process, other then the background check a few days delay, nothing else was required.

You misunderstood. I'm not saying that that is currently a new restriction. I'm saying that if Arlos got what he wanted, it would be a new restriction, even though he likes to dress it up as something else.

I was just given a 12 gauge shotgun w/ exposed hammers.

There is no paperwork involved, just saying, "here, you can have this."

Is that legal?

By federal law, yes. There is no federal law banning that transaction, provided you are not a felon or guilty of domestic violence, or have been committed by a judge to a mental institution. As for California law, I don't concern myself with that craziness, so you'll have to look for yourself. In Wisconsin, there is no law against it.

Should we test voters for the ability to name more than 1 of the candidates before they cast their vote?

um, yes please.

Lets see, first lets eliminate everyone who thought that this quote, "I can see Russia from my house!" came from Sarah Palin.

[Drem]

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."

[Jay]

Passing a gun safety test, is a new restriction whether you believe so or not. Surely it is a restriction with good intention in mind, but then, most restrictions are. The fundamental issue with this however, is what other constitutional right do you need to pass a test for in order to exercise? Should we test news anchors for bias before allowing private corporations to put them on TV? Should we test voters for the ability to name more than 1 of the candidates before they cast their vote?

Yes if it could be done efficiently, and hell fucking yes.

I swear every gun toting whackjob has the same mentality. The second there's a mention of the word "gun" in any form of legislation it's like they all cock their rifle's in unison and start screaming about their rights at the same time. Let's draw it out in simple terms.

Guy A: Hi, I'm some schmuck who lives in the suburbs and thinks it's important to own a gun. I wanna buy one.
Shopkeeper: Ok, fill this out for a background check. It takes a few days. Also, you have to take a safety course before I can complete the sale.
Guy A: Wait, you mean I have to take a course on how to be safe with a device that can kill someone in less than a second? That's retarded and is an infringement on my rights.

Like, I don't see what the big deal is. Yes there's restrictions. Why? Cuz not every person should own something that can kill someone so efficiently. There are people out there who cause accidental extreme physical harm or even fatalities with household appliances let alone firearms. Chalk it up to the few ruining it for the many. Bear in mind too that a lot of people who THINK they are responsible gun owners aren't.

I'm not against owning guns. TBH I'm not even against what kind of guns you own. It just boggles me why it's such a big problem for us as a nation to be as safe as fucking possible in the handling of very potentially dangerous goods. Oh, right, because if any sort of safety measure becomes annoying, it's an infringement on our rights. Yeah, I hate getting my car reregistered, having to take the driving test every so often, renewing my license, but it's all necessary if I want to enjoy the privilege of driving. It should be the same way with guns, even though (and I suppose some gun looney will argue this point) driving is a little more vital to our day to day than owning a gun is.

[Gypsiyee]

Should we test voters for the ability to name more than 1 of the candidates before they cast their vote?

um, yes please.

Lets see, first lets eliminate everyone who thought that this quote, "I can see Russia from my house!" came from Sarah Palin.

that's a bit different - it's awfully hard to discern between some of the things she said and some of the skits because there's verbatim quotes in several of the skits. at the same token, let's go ahead and eliminate people who still think obama's a muslim and an arab. there goes most of the fox news base.

[Arlos]

How about we also eliminate those people who believe that Obama isn't a US Citizen as well? Definitely loony there, too.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

And then lets eliminate everyone who believes that his proposed tax increases won't affect them because they'll only apply to those making 250 thousand plus, and corporations.

[vonkaar]

sorry, all this talk about eliminating people...

[Eziekial]

I just laughed coffee all over my keyboard... thanks Vonk.