Calling all Democrats/liberals

I will take Democrats for $500 Alex...

 

I have actually said for a long time that I’m all for sensible gun control. I view it the same way as dui checkpoints. I enjoy drinking alcohol on occasion and I do so responsibly so I will never get caught at a dui checkpoint. And that checkpoint helps keep my loved ones safe by reducing the amount of drunk drivers on the road. At worst it’s an inconvenience if I’m ever stopped at one. And it’s a hell of a lot better alternative to prohibition.

So that being said I absolutely agree with “common sense” gun control although I think my definition of common sense may differ from others. Meanwhile a large chunk of conservatives continue to preach if we give an inch, they’ll take a mile. And I guess I kept wanting to believe that wasn’t true and that they can’t take anymore than we let them. But as time passes, I question that more and more.

 

So to paraphrase you have no issue with dozens of law abiding citizens getting stopped to prove their innocence because you fear drunk drivers. You also have no problem with the 2nd amendment being 'infringed' as long as you deem it common sense.

Waiting for the 'yeah but'......

 

Any time you hear "common sense" or "sensible" legislation, it is extreme leftist horseshit. The dems don't know or understand common sense.
An actual common sense gun law that should have been passed long ago is to remove gun mufflers from NFA regulation. They aren't weapons, they aren't firearms. They are hearing protection plain and simple.

 

both

 

I see your point in statement one they will never be happy even after they take away the second amendment. In statement two of course they want to take away your guns some even admit it.

 

I'm curious if there is a statistic out there somewhere that shows how many firearms are registered/licensed to a deceased person? Our long history of firearm ownership means millions of them have changed hands over the years. I know a friend who's Grandfather passed and left all his firearms to his father.. then he passed and left all his grandfathers and his firearms to him.. not a one has went and been re-registered.. and I'm guessing thats very common. So go confiscate his 10 firearms they know of.. he still has another 30.

If they wanted to really rid firearms it would be far easier to ban or heavily restrict ammunition. Eventually the firearms would be a moot point.

For what its worth I'm pro gun and I think there should be more. I also believe there should be stringent background checks. Nothing that a law abiding gun owner would argue with.

 

Also I'm very tired of the term "assault rifle". I'm betting I can do more dammage with a suppressed Ruger 10/22 than an AR. Granted the time table would shift and the AR would do more quicker but get someone caught.. but the 10/22 would allow someone to go on for months causing damage. If I assault someone with a rifle does that not make it an assault rifle by definition? Hell, I could wack someone in the head with the stock of my 22-250 - ASSAULT RIFLE!

 

Gun registries are illegal.
There are stringent background checks on firearm purchases.

 

If a few minutes of inconvenience means my wife and kid are less likely to be struck by a drunk driver then yes I have absolutely zero problem with it. Now my preferred method would be make the penalties so extreme that checkpoints aren’t necessary. But we all know the bleeding hearts of the world won’t allow that.

And in case you forgot, the exact wording of the 2nd is for a “WELL REGULATED militia.” So I have no problem with background checks. I’ll never fail one and neither will anyone who should be able to own a gun. If you think the inconvenience of a $10 charge and a 10 minutes is unrealistic to ensure a gangbanger can’t easily and legally obtain a firearm then frankly, you’re as much of a snowflake as anyone on the left.

 

I own what some would consider a shitload of guns. I don't hunt. I'm not a murderer. I just use them for sporting clays, target shooting and I guess self/home protection if the situation ever presented itself. What puzzles me is calls for "expanded background checks." I have had a background check on every single firearms purchase, whether a handgun, shotgun, rifle or the dreaded AR-15. Where exactly are these purchases taking place without background checks?
The same idiots calling for stonger gun laws are the same morons letting crimes commited with guns go lightly or unpunished by real criminals.
Funny how that works right Chicago?

 

There's one of the problems. "Well regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

And the militia part has nothing to do with the right of the people part.

 

I’ll go out on a limb here and say no one knows for sure what it means. It’s not explicitly defined and the dudes who wrote kinda haven’t been around for a couple centuries. So it’s open to interpretation. One could even argue that no civilian not part of a state militia should be able to own firearms. I don’t agree with that but the wording is open enough to make the argument. Bottom line is well regulated is a part of the wording.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m an avid gun enthusiast. I own several, including a couple of those really scary rifles. I also believe with the right licensing, civilians should be able to own all the things banned by the nfa. But there should be regulation to it so that it is more difficult for those who shouldn’t own firearms to acquire them.

We require a license to operate a vehicle but not weapons that were designed with the primary purpose of killing a living creature, including people. Why?

 

And here's where I have another gripe. The 2nd amendment says "the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms." It doesn't say the right to bear arms in PA. It doesn't say the right to bear arms in TX. It says the right to keep and bear arms period.
I have a concealed carry permit. Why the hell does that only qualify me to carry in my state (or reciprocal states) when the right is a U.S. constitutional guaranteed right?
There are a lot of unconstitutional gun laws on the books in some states and cities in my opinion.

 

How precisely will your background check prevent that gang banger from buying an ILLEGAL gun? How many gang bangers do you think might be running around with a gun they bought from a gun store using their own ID and going through the background checks we already have?

your solution is desperately in need of a problem. criminals dont use legal guns.

I may be a snowflake but you sir are acting on emotion, not logic.

 

there are several states, Utah being one of them, where you can buy a firearm in a parking lot from a guy who advertised it online. no background check required. anyone with a brain would require at least a bill of sale, drivers license, and maybe a carry permit. but there are plenty that don't. i've chosen NOT to even engage those folks.

 

So as not to get too distracted from my original, I guess the whole point of this thread is the thoughts I’ve written out here are how I’ve generally always felt about gun legislation. But shit like what that article shows makes me really wanna go “fuck it, you wanna go to extremes and not actually use common sense (since that’s the term they love throwing around) then I’ll just say no, make it the wild fucking west.” That’s still better than gun confiscation or overregulation.

 

Wasn't aware of that. I mean, the sale of a firearm is only as secure as the seller would require I guess. Doesn't really matter in which state. Any dumbass willing to sell a gun to a stranger in a parking lot minus a background check is certainly a problem. I'm aware that's how criminals acquire guns...
I am 100% for background checks. I wasn't aware there are states that allow a gun to be purchased without one (legally).