Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Orbitus]

So buying matching lever actions carbines for the wife and myself as an anniversary present last year makes me an ammosexual? Man she's going to be a bit peeved at that.

Nope, that just makes you weird.

[Kellhound]

Nope, that just makes you weird.

Nothing weird about that at all.

[Mayhem]

So buying matching lever actions carbines for the wife and myself as an anniversary present last year makes me an ammosexual? Man she's going to be a bit peeved at that.

Out of curiosity, did the anniversary came by surprise or could you've bought one of those guns a month earlier than the second?

[Dadwen]

Out of curiosity, did the anniversary came by surprise or could you've bought one of those guns a month earlier than the second?

Maybe he came across them at a gun show.... at least around me I don't know of any guns shows that are on every month and some of the shops that attend them are from the other side of the state.
it's a moronic rule.

[petej0]

So, if the Russian assets the NRA would have not said anything, you would be fine with it? Thanks for letting us know.

First, I dont know anything about Russian NRA assets, but whatever. Second, if the NRA wouldnt have said something, others would have spoken out. Even if others didnt speak out and he continued to push he would have lost support from his base and would have eventually backed off once he realized his support was decreasing. So, it didnt matter, he would have backed down anyways.

If you need more than 1 gun a month, even though you only have 2 hands, you have a problem, and it is what I like to call Ammosexuality.

Why is it any concern to you what a law abiding citizen does with their own money? Who cares if someone buys one firearm a month, or two or 10? What difference is it to you if someone buys one firearm a year or twelve? The great thing about a free society, is that you dont have someone lording over you telling you, you can only buy one firearm, one car, one house, one TV, one iPhone, one computer, one game system or only smoke one joint a week or two alcohol drinks a night. Go ahead and demean these people as "ammosexuals", that only means you cant come up with any other valid reason why a law abiding citizen should be limited in exercising their rights.

[Machismo]

First, I dont know anything about Russian NRA assets, but whatever. Second, if the NRA wouldnt have said something, others would have spoken out. Even if others didnt speak out and he continued to push he would have lost support from his base and would have eventually backed off once he realized his support was decreasing. So, it didnt matter, he would have backed down anyways.




Why is it any concern to you what a law abiding citizen does with their own money? Who cares if someone buys one firearm a month, or two or 10? What difference is it to you if someone buys one firearm a year or twelve? The great thing about a free society, is that you dont have someone lording over you telling you, you can only buy one firearm, one car, one house, one TV, one iPhone, one computer, one game system or only smoke one joint a week or two alcohol drinks a night. Go ahead and demean these people as "ammosexuals", that only means you cant come up with any other valid reason why a law abiding citizen should be limited in exercising their rights.

You literally argued that you were fine with the legislation in Virginia...

First, on the face of it, I dont have issue with the laws that were recently passed. One gun a month is a reasonable limit and background checks on private sales is a reasonable law. However, this doesnt stop the issue of gun violence. Anyone seeking to commit a crime who has no criminal history is not encumbered in their quest to obtain a firearm. Anyone seeking to commit a crime with a criminal history is slightly encumbered by virtue of the background check (in that they now have to find someone who is willing to sell it to them without the background check).

Again, I have no issues, so dont lump me in with those who marched. I didnt march.

That's hilarious.

[petej0]

Out of curiosity, did the anniversary came by surprise or could you've bought one of those guns a month earlier than the second?

It is possible that firearms are sold in pairs at a gun show. Like matching decorative handguns etc.. so to be able to only buy one, is a little moronic in that sense.

What do you do, buy one and promise the seller you will purchase the second sometime in the future? What happens if you dont? I suppose the law could a purchase and a deposit for the second for a later purchase and you lose the deposit if you dont purchase at a later time. Or be possible to purchase both and take one home at the time of purchase and have the other shipped later. In either case you are making more work for the seller.

Maybe you would need to get an advance approval to purchase two firearms within a 30 day period. So if you know of a gun show coming up you can apply for a multiple purchase in case you see something you like? I dont know just spit balling here.

- - - Updated - - -

You literally argued that you were fine with the legislation in Virginia...

Yeah so, whats your point?

[Machismo]

It is possible that firearms are sold in pairs at a gun show. Like matching decorative handguns etc.. so to be able to only buy one, is a little moronic in that sense.

What do you do, buy one and promise the seller you will purchase the second sometime in the future? What happens if you dont? I suppose the law could a purchase and a deposit for the second for a later purchase and you lose the deposit if you dont purchase at a later time. Or be possible to purchase both and take one home at the time of purchase and have the other shipped later. In either case you are making more work for the seller.

Maybe you would need to get an advance approval to purchase two firearms within a 30 day period. So if you know of a gun show coming up you can apply for a multiple purchase in case you see something you like? I dont know just spit balling here.

- - - Updated - - -




Yeah so, whats your point?

My point is that there's a clear disconnect.

[petej0]

My point is that there's a clear disconnect.

Between? /10char

[Mayhem]

Why is it any concern to you what a law abiding citizen does with their own money? Who cares if someone buys one firearm a month, or two or 10? What difference is it to you if someone buys one firearm a year or twelve? The great thing about a free society, is that you dont have someone lording over you telling you, you can only buy one firearm, one car, one house, one TV, one iPhone, one computer, one game system or only smoke one joint a week or two alcohol drinks a night. Go ahead and demean these people as "ammosexuals", that only means you cant come up with any other valid reason why a law abiding citizen should be limited in exercising their rights.

Ignoring your attempt of slippery sloping your argument into nonsense, every criminal is a law abiding citizen until found guilty. Arguing what does it matter what law abiding citizens do is arguing against law enforcement.

The ones caring about if someone buys one firearm a month or 10 or more are probably the ones trying to fight gun trafficking but yeah, considering every form of legislation to fight that and relating issues is countered with the 2nd amendment muh rights argument your country will never actually improve on those issues.

Thoughts and prayers forever.

[Machismo]

Between? /10char

Your support of a proposed law, and complaining that someone else would dare support that very same law... quite adorable.

[Mayhem]

It is possible that firearms are sold in pairs at a gun show. Like matching decorative handguns etc.. so to be able to only buy one, is a little moronic in that sense.

What do you do, buy one and promise the seller you will purchase the second sometime in the future? What happens if you dont? I suppose the law could a purchase and a deposit for the second for a later purchase and you lose the deposit if you dont purchase at a later time. Or be possible to purchase both and take one home at the time of purchase and have the other shipped later. In either case you are making more work for the seller.

Maybe you would need to get an advance approval to purchase two firearms within a 30 day period. So if you know of a gun show coming up you can apply for a multiple purchase in case you see something you like? I dont know just spit balling here.

Wuuuut? You're presenting solutions to the problem, what the heck?

[petej0]

Your support of a proposed law, and complaining that someone else would dare support that very same law... quite adorable.

Yes, I said I supported the purchase limits. But then it was explained to me how that could present an issue. So I have backed off on it to reconsider my position. I am allowed to reconsider and possibly change my position on things, am I? Second, this person is only out to demean firearm owners as "ammosexuals" because they dare desire to want to purchase more than what someone deems "reasonable". At least when I defended the purchase requirement I didnt label them "ammosexuals", I just said I thought it was reasonable. A discussion ensued and I was empathetic to the counter argument. I didnt just dismiss the person as "ammosexual"

Ignoring your attempt of slippery sloping your argument into nonsense, every criminal is a law abiding citizen until found guilty. Arguing what does it matter what law abiding citizens do is arguing against law enforcement.

No it isn't, if you are obeying the laws and not infringing on the rights of others, who cares if you paint your house pink, buy ten cars or ten guns? I was more making an argument to the person who made the "ammosexual" comment. As if wanting to own multiple is weird. Nobody goes around calling car collectors "autosexuals" or comic book collectors "cartoonsexuals" its stupid and was only an attempt to demean without making a valid argument against.

The ones caring about if someone buys one firearm a month or 10 or more are probably the ones trying to fight gun trafficking but yeah, considering every form of legislation to fight that and relating issues is countered with the 2nd amendment muh rights argument your country will never actually improve on those issues.

Thoughts and prayers forever.

Yeah and if you are trafficking guns you are not law abiding. I get what you are saying though and that is, how do we know Joe (who has no criminal history) isnt buying these firearms and selling them on the black market? Simple answer is we dont. That is why I supported the purchase limit legislation but have reconsidered based on a few comments about specialty items. Which prompted a few brainstorm ideas, that might work out, I dont know. What we can do is strengthen our existing laws to "Accessory" crimes for any crime committed with a gun they straw purchased. Along with tougher Federal crimes for people (who were not supposed to be in possession of guns) who commit gun crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

Wuuuut? You're presenting solutions to the problem, what the heck?

I am trying to be open and reasonable on both sides. I realize there are holes in the system and want reasonable solutions that help keep guns out of the hands of people who arent supposed to have them, while also listening to the concerns of supporters of firearms.

[Mayhem]

I am trying to be open and reasonable on both sides. I realize there are holes in the system and want reasonable solutions that help keep guns out of the hands of people who arent supposed to have them, while also listening to the concerns of supporters of firearms.

The concerns of supporters of firearms in the end always boil down to "I don't trust the government". So it is already nonsensical to try and listen to their concerns because they aren't sincere about them anyway.

Gun registration, would in no way infringe on law abiding citizens right to own firearms, but you can't have that because yada yada ebil gubbernment.

[Machismo]

Yes, I said I supported the purchase limits. But then it was explained to me how that could present an issue. So I have backed off on it to reconsider my position. I am allowed to reconsider and possibly change my position on things, am I? Second, this person is only out to demean firearm owners as "ammosexuals" because they dare desire to want to purchase more than what someone deems "reasonable". At least when I defended the purchase requirement I didnt label them "ammosexuals", I just said I thought it was reasonable. A discussion ensued and I was empathetic to the counter argument. I didnt just dismiss the person as "ammosexual"




No it isn't, if you are obeying the laws and not infringing on the rights of others, who cares if you paint your house pink, buy ten cars or ten guns? I was more making an argument to the person who made the "ammosexual" comment. As if wanting to own multiple is weird. Nobody goes around calling car collectors "autosexuals" or comic book collectors "cartoonsexuals" its stupid and was only an attempt to demean without making a valid argument against.



Yeah and if you are trafficking guns you are not law abiding. I get what you are saying though and that is, how do we know Joe (who has no criminal history) isnt buying these firearms and selling them on the black market? Simple answer is we dont. That is why I supported the purchase limit legislation but have reconsidered based on a few comments about specialty items. Which prompted a few brainstorm ideas, that might work out, I dont know. What we can do is strengthen our existing laws to "Accessory" crimes for any crime committed with a gun they straw purchased. Along with tougher Federal crimes for people (who were not supposed to be in possession of guns) who commit gun crimes.

- - - Updated - - -



I am trying to be open and reasonable on both sides. I realize there are holes in the system and want reasonable solutions that help keep guns out of the hands of people who arent supposed to have them, while also listening to the concerns of supporters of firearms.

It would seem you were ignorant of the actual law when you first chimed in, how odd.

[petej0]

The concerns of supporters of firearms in the end always boil down to "I don't trust the government". So it is already nonsensical to try and listen to their concerns because they aren't sincere about them anyway.

Gun registration, would in no way infringe on law abiding citizens right to own firearms, but you can't have that because yada yada ebil gubbernment.

We can still argue the merits without dismissing the valid concerns. We have had at least four Democratic Presidental candidates all tout an assault weapons ban with mandatory gun buy back. You may think a gun registration has no infringement on ownership, but combined with a mandatory gun buy back, it does.

It would seem you were ignorant of the actual law when you first chimed in, how odd.

It would seem.

[Mayhem]

We can still argue the merits without dismissing the valid concerns. We have had at least four Democratic Presidental candidates all tout an assault weapons ban with mandatory gun buy back. You may think a gun registration has no infringement on ownership, but combined with a mandatory gun buy back, it does.

Aha, so we should dismiss gun registration because combined with something that is an infringement it becomes infringement. Brilliant logic.

[petej0]

Aha, so we should dismiss gun registration because combined with something that is an infringement it becomes infringement. Brilliant logic.

An Assault weapons ban has been in effect before. There have been gun buy back programs before. So it is not out of the realm of possibility for them to happen again.

Combine that with a registry of where the Government can find weapons it chooses to "out law" and you can see why people are against fucking registries. Its really simple to follow. Gun rights advocates dont want a registry because a registry can be used to take their guns away or at least target specific people. Its the same fucking argument people have against registries where the government can track who you voted for.

[Svifnymr]

Maybe he came across them at a gun show.... at least around me I don't know of any guns shows that are on every month and some of the shops that attend them are from the other side of the state.
it's a moronic rule.

Given that any purchase of more than 1 handgun in a week gets a notification sent to ATF, this actually means a gun trafficker will have less tracking on his purchases, it'll just take longer between buys. Assuming there's no exemption for a license or something and of course that they don't just swap to a different method.

I'm not sure of the specifics of the law in Virginia, so I wonder if you bought a gun, didn't like it and traded it for another gun, if you'd have to wait a month since the second gun is in the same month. Similarly if the first gun is defective so you swap it.

[Mayhem]

An Assault weapons ban has been in effect before. There have been gun buy back programs before. So it is not out of the realm of possibility for them to happen again.

Combine that with a registry of where the Government can find weapons it chooses to "out law" and you can see why people are against fucking registries. Its really simple to follow. Gun rights advocates dont want a registry because a registry can be used to take their guns away or at least target specific people. Its the same fucking argument people have against registries where the government can track who you voted for.

Yeah, gun nuts have a problem with democracy too, that's obvious to anyone giving their arguments a minute of thought.

What gun buyback programs are you talking about that firearm owners base their fears on?

So the cycle continues, can't implement something that would actually help fight criminal firearm ownership because it maybe could at some point lead to something that has never happened before and is very unlikely to ever happen in the US, therefore, civilians feel the need to own firearms because criminals can get them too easily.