***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

 

[timschochet]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

 

[mad sweeney]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

That's pretty hilarious. It won't stop people completely and society won't pay for my hobby, so I don't care if criminals easily get guns from private sales. Obviously keeping guns out of the wrong hands is a top priority for you guys.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

How does a guy with PTSD, who's previously menaced the public with a gun, beat a dog to death, and threatened to shoot his neighbors still have a gun available to him to kill a bus driver and take a kid hostage? This is the poster child for what's wrong with the current laws/enforcement.Hopefully some smart politician will stand in front of a camera and wave a picture of the dead man and the kid while asking this question.

 

[ichris]

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Believe it.

 

[greenroom]

How does a guy with PTSD, who's previously menaced the public with a gun, beat a dog to death, and threatened to shoot his neighbors still have a gun available to him to kill a bus driver and take a kid hostage? This is the poster child for what's wrong with the current laws/enforcement.Hopefully some smart politician will stand in front of a camera and wave a picture of the dead man and the kid while asking this question.

You bring up a good point with the PTSD. However my father had PTSD and owned guns but respected them. I dont think just because you have PTSD that you cannot have guns. Most of the guys with PTSD got it by defending this country and they have eared the right to own guns, but they do have mental issues which is one big red flag for me on owning guns. Not sure what the correct answer is to this problem.

 

[ichris]

Nm

 

[spreagle]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Nobody is checking to see if a car sale is going to be used as a getaway car for a bank robbery.

 

[ichris]

That's pretty hilarious. It won't stop people completely and society won't pay for my hobby, so I don't care if criminals easily get guns from private sales. Obviously keeping guns out of the wrong hands is a top priority for you guys.

If it's not important enough to you to chip in your fair share then forget it. We don't need a fancy new background check system that I'm not convinced will keep guns away from prohibited people.

 

[Dvorak]

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Woah, WOAH, F-ing WOAH!You've just spent the last 150 pages telling us it was so freaking important to safeguard society that gun owners had to cave in and "compromise" on our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But, when it comes time for society to give up a little, it's not their obligation!?

Get bent.

 

[cobalt_27]

How does a guy with PTSD, who's previously menaced the public with a gun, beat a dog to death, and threatened to shoot his neighbors still have a gun available to him to kill a bus driver and take a kid hostage?

This is the poster child for what's wrong with the current laws/enforcement.

Hopefully some smart politician will stand in front of a camera and wave a picture of the dead man and the kid while asking this question.

Fixed.No reason PTSD should necessarily be exclusionary criteria for owning a firearm. All the other stuff, though, is concerning.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Woah, WOAH, F-ing WOAH!You've just spent the last 150 pages telling us it was so freaking important to safeguard society that gun owners had to cave in and "compromise" on our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But, when it comes time for society to give up a little, it's not their obligation!?

Get bent.

God-given? Sorry to break the news to you, but you have no God-given rights. Welcome to the real world. And if the United States government declares something so, you can either abide, break the law, or beat it on down the line to somewhere else where your "god-given" right to own mass-killing instruments are cool. Like the third world.

 

[cobalt_27]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

I think most folks have stopped paying attention. He takes vapidness to a whole different level.

 

[mad sweeney]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Nobody is checking to see if a car sale is going to be used as a getaway car for a bank robbery.

Oh yeah, cars are a GREAT comparison!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

you're not allowed to compare a gun to a car..

 

[boots11234]

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Woah, WOAH, F-ing WOAH!You've just spent the last 150 pages telling us it was so freaking important to safeguard society that gun owners had to cave in and "compromise" on our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But, when it comes time for society to give up a little, it's not their obligation!?

Get bent.

God-given? Sorry to break the news to you, but you have no God-given rights. Welcome to the real world. And if the United States government declares something so, you can either abide, break the law, or beat it on down the line to somewhere else where your "god-given" right to own mass-killing instruments are cool. Like the third world.

Mr apple jack off applying his charm again I see.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

I think most folks have stopped paying attention. He takes vapidness to a whole different level.

you 2 might as well be the same person as similar as you 2 are..Both liberal, both would rather post inflammatory comments or insults than have a productive conversation.I wouldn't be surprised if both of these profiles were generated from the same IP address..

 

[boots11234]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

I think most folks have stopped paying attention. He takes vapidness to a whole different level.

you 2 might as well be the same person as similar as you 2 are..Both liberal, both would rather post inflammatory comments or insults than have a productive conversation.I wouldn't be surprised if both of these profiles were generated from the same IP address..

I'm guessing they are husband and husband.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Woah, WOAH, F-ing WOAH!You've just spent the last 150 pages telling us it was so freaking important to safeguard society that gun owners had to cave in and "compromise" on our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But, when it comes time for society to give up a little, it's not their obligation!?

Get bent.

God-given? Sorry to break the news to you, but you have no God-given rights. Welcome to the real world. And if the United States government declares something so, you can either abide, break the law, or beat it on down the line to somewhere else where your "god-given" right to own mass-killing instruments are cool. Like the third world.

Mr apple jack off applying his charm again I see.

This thread, on this board, being ground zero for charm and all.

 

[mad sweeney]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

you're not allowed to compare a gun to a car..

OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO GOOD WITH THESE THINGS!!!!!So, did you ever find out about the 3rd suspect?

Do you agree that your comparison was ridiculous?

Or are you just going to ignore them as usual (or edit out the tough questions when you reply)?

 

[cobalt_27]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

I think most folks have stopped paying attention. He takes vapidness to a whole different level.

you 2 might as well be the same person as similar as you 2 are..Both liberal, both would rather post inflammatory comments or insults than have a productive conversation.I wouldn't be surprised if both of these profiles were generated from the same IP address..

Problem with making assumptions is that you often will be categorically wrong, most likely because you have incorrect premises. As always, you have no clue what you are talking about. I am liberal in some respects, conservative in most others. Some issues require thoughtfulness, education, and scrutiny. The gun issue is one where many liberals would agree and disagree with my perspective. There are a host of issues where my position is completely antagonistic to the liberal point of view.What I respect most is an intelligent and well-formulated perspective, whether I ultimately agree or disagree. I disrespect those who refuse to think independently. If you find that to be inflammatory, so be it. It's probably intended to be so.

 

[Hoosier16]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning. Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

FFLs in and around Seattle. Plenty in the $20-$25 range.In Washington, when someone buys an item in a private sale, such as furniture or a gun, and no sales tax is collected, the buyer is required to pay a use tax. This use tax rate is coincidentally equal to the sales tax rate. Requiring a sale to go through an FFL only assures that the state will get the tax. No new tax is levied.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

The problem with this is that there is no way to verify whether someone has committed a crme after they received their CCW card or their WAC badge. They can still flash their badge or card and pass the check.It wouldn't be too hard for each gun show to set up a private sales table and charge a nominal fee to do background checks. Due to the volume of transfers, the money collected by the FFL during the weekend would likely easily be worth their time, even with a very low transfer fee.

Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

Not sure how you verify someone's identity over the internet.

 

[ichris]

That list of FFLs on gunbroker is wildly outdated. Ten years ago there were 283,000 FFLs. Today there are only 118,000. There are not plenty of FFLs charging transfer fees that cheap anymore. In a face to face private transfer I avoid the use tax. I can't do that if an FFL is required to runs a NICS check. I am satisfied with the measures WAC has in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe it will be anywhere near as expensive as you claim. But regardless, I don't see how it's society's obligation to pay for it. Again, I don't expect others to pay for my car registration, or for the sales tax for my private purchases.

Woah, WOAH, F-ing WOAH!You've just spent the last 150 pages telling us it was so freaking important to safeguard society that gun owners had to cave in and "compromise" on our God-given, Constitutionally-protected rights. But, when it comes time for society to give up a little, it's not their obligation!?

Get bent.

Putting aside the issue of God: I have never once argued that you should compromise your Constitutional rights. From the beginning of this conversation, I have held that universal background checks do not violate the 2nd Amendment (or any other part of the Constitution, in case 5 Digit tries to make his absurd argument again.) And yes, I think the gun-owners should be the ones paying for the background checks. Absolutely.

 

[timschochet]

I'm guessing they are husband and husband.

Way to keep the conversation civil.

 

[Hoosier16]

That list of FFLs on gunbroker is wildly outdated. Ten years ago there were 283,000 FFLs. Today there are only 118,000. There are not plenty of FFLs charging transfer fees that cheap anymore.

I just checked the 1st 3 pages on that link. The prices listed for the ones that had websites matched their prices listed on their websites. I couldn't find any that were outdated.I'm not sure why the number of FFLs is important, but I think there are only about 60,000 today.

In a face to face private transfer I avoid the use tax. I can't do that if an FFL is required to runs a NICS check.

That's not quite the same as being charged a new tax. The tax is currently required. "Avoid" probably isn't the right word.

I am satisfied with the measures WAC has in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

That's great that you're satisfied, but there clearly is a giant hole in their method. Nobody is going to confiscate my CCW card if I'm arrested for a domestic crime. They will deny me if I try to renew it, but that may be 5 years from now.

 

[cobalt_27]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

I think most folks have stopped paying attention. He takes vapidness to a whole different level.

you 2 might as well be the same person as similar as you 2 are..Both liberal, both would rather post inflammatory comments or insults than have a productive conversation.I wouldn't be surprised if both of these profiles were generated from the same IP address..

I'm guessing they are husband and husband.

Like every stupid thing you have to add here, this is one of them. Wife and I are expecting our first here n a few months. Shocking you'd reveal your hillbilly self as a homophobe here.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Seems to be what they resort to when they don't have anything intelligent on the topic to say. For like the hundredth time, until you can provide the data backing this "peer-reviewed literature" we will continue to call you out on this biased fluff with unproven stats. I've posted a link to someone already asking these authors for the data to be exposed and zilch.The fact that Cobalt's focus is on these outlier incidents that are not even a blip on the gun violence scale just goes to show he cares more about "white people gun control issues" then gun violence as a whole.

Jesus.I'm not what's more amazing: the fact that you still haven't gotten it or the fact that you think that you get it more than others. This is some pretty ####### complete self-delusion going on.

I think most folks have stopped paying attention. He takes vapidness to a whole different level.

you 2 might as well be the same person as similar as you 2 are..Both liberal, both would rather post inflammatory comments or insults than have a productive conversation.I wouldn't be surprised if both of these profiles were generated from the same IP address..

I am 98% convinced they are the same douchebags

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

Laughing at something is far from proving their point.

The Constitution protects the rights of private citizens to bear arms, but is the regulation of these arms a state or federal issue? Under the structure of powers within the Constitution, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce.

often times it is a sign of smug arrogance/ignorance of which I have zero tolerance

 

[Novice2]

Good thing this family didn't have a bunch of guns and or not gung-ho about defending their abode..

 

[boots11234]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

 

[Henry Ford]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

Laughing at something is far from proving their point.

The Constitution protects the rights of private citizens to bear arms, but is the regulation of these arms a state or federal issue? Under the structure of powers within the Constitution, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce.

often times it is a sign of smug arrogance/ignorance of which I have zero tolerance

You ever play go fish with someone who has a severe mental disability? And have them yell 'checkmate! I win!'

 

[smotherhook]

I have some reasonable objections to requiring background checks for face to face private sales, aka closing the gun show loophole. Although it goes against a learned instinct to NEVER negotiate my gun rights with the gun control crowd, I'll attempt to help you understand my reasoning.

Currently you must be an FFL to use the NICS system. They don't let private parties use it. Unless that changes, all background checks require an FFL to call it in, and the ATF also requires them to collect a filled out form 4473 containing all your personal information. FFLs won't do these things for free. Currently all the local gun shops charge about $40 for a transfer. On top of the transfer fee WA state also requires the FFL collect sales tax, it doesn't matter whether the gun is new or used. Ultimately it will end up being a massive tax hike on gun owners that most of us can't afford. This won't be a big deal to the majority of people who just want to buy a gun to protect their family. But the hobbyists and collectors who trade often will be crippled, and that's not acceptable.

If the goal is to create a safer society without infringing on the 2nd amendment, it's something everyone should pay for without unduly penalizing gun owners. If you object to this it may indicate you are more interested in punishing gun owners instead of making society safer. Policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

In WA we do plenty to limit the perceived gun show loophole though. The WA Arms Collectors organization runs most of the gun shows here. Gun show rules limit firearm sales only to current members. To be a member you must pass a background check. Obviously private sales outside of gun shows aren't under the same rules. But in those cases people generally request to see the buyer's concealed weapons permit, because you must pass a background check to obtain one. It's not an obligation to verify the buyer, but it's something I would do if I was going to sell a weapon. I know that if one of the guns I sold ended up at a crime scene it would eventually lead the investigators to my door. But if I've gone through the effort to see the buyers conceal permit or WAC membership badge then I've done everything in my power to verify I am not arming a prohibited person.

Regardless, if a prohibited person wants a gun, they will be able to get one. There's no way around that, even though it's illegal for them to have one. This is why I can't support a new system that costs me more money and requires an FFL for face to face private sales. It's not going to stop bad people from obtaining weapons. It'll only make it harder and more expensive for law abiding citizens to purchase them.

A universal background check system that could work for me must have these goals:

[*]Make the gun transfer process safer and easier, not harder and more expensive.

[*]Needs to allow universal access to accommodate private sales, without requiring an FFL.

[*]Internet sales will no longer require FFLs because the universal background check system verifies the buyer's legal status

[*]No new revenue will be raised off private gun sales

I could only support a universal background check system that makes it easier to verify a person. I'm not confident our legislators are capable of creating a system that streamlines the process instead of complicating it. I haven't heard any ideas floated around that would resolve any of my reservations or appease my suggestions. Until I do, I will remain with the NRA against universal background checks.

 

[mad sweeney]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Did the armed guard use his weapon? None of the stories I read suggest that his being armed had anything to do with it. The tone of the way the stories are written are that he wrestled the gun away. Have you seen anything with more detail?

 

[Blick]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

Did the armed guard use his weapon? None of the stories I read suggest that his being armed had anything to do with it. The tone of the way the stories are written are that he wrestled the gun away. Have you seen anything with more detail?

If so, then good for him. Otherwise, its nice to now that the slaughter would likely not have continued had he had to use his firearm.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

Or we could only tax all the individuals that are scared of guns for us to protect them, that would only cost you $28 per year. That's a small price to pay to protect our children, right?

 

[smotherhook]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

more taxes? yeah that is what we need

 

[ATC1]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

more taxes? yeah that is what we need

People who use bridges pay tolls. People who drive pay gas taxes. In strict economic reasoning, when you have a cost placed onto society by a certain set of individuals or entities, the way that you get the right amount of consumption of that good is by throwing this new cost back onto the consumers of the good.In plain English, if people want guns they should pay for things associated with them, including now needing to put guards into schools. They shouldn't expect a welfare-esque handout from the rest of the country just so they can enjoy their hobby.

The gun owners are not the ones who are allowed to bring in the guns for protection. What you are saying is that all the parents with kids in school should pay a fee for their child's protection?Gun owners pay a transfer fee, tax on bullets, (which will probably be increased for sure), tax of the purchase of the weapon, pay to practice or take self defense classes and those who have a permit to carry pay an annual fee for the permit. I'll pay a hefty increase in tax, but self defense classes, practice range fees or anything associated with ensuring safety should be offered to anyone at no cost then.

 

[ichris]

That list of FFLs on gunbroker is wildly outdated. Ten years ago there were 283,000 FFLs. Today there are only 118,000. There are not plenty of FFLs charging transfer fees that cheap anymore.

I just checked the 1st 3 pages on that link. The prices listed for the ones that had websites matched their prices listed on their websites. I couldn't find any that were outdated.I'm not sure why the number of FFLs is important, but I think there are only about 60,000 today.

In a face to face private transfer I avoid the use tax. I can't do that if an FFL is required to runs a NICS check.

That's not quite the same as being charged a new tax. The tax is currently required. "Avoid" probably isn't the right word.

I am satisfied with the measures WAC has in place to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

That's great that you're satisfied, but there clearly is a giant hole in their method. Nobody is going to confiscate my CCW card if I'm arrested for a domestic crime. They will deny me if I try to renew it, but that may be 5 years from now.

The shrinking number of FFLs matters because there are fewer businesses that can legally facilitate gun transfers. With less competition the FFLs charge whatever they want to process a transfer. Gun stores charge confiscatory prices for transfers because they'd rather you bought the gun from them. Again, it won't be a big deal for the average person. But it will cripple a collectors ability to trade without significantly diminishing the value of his collection.If you are so convinced universal background checks will make society safer then you should have no problems paying your fair share of the cost. I'm not convinced it will make a difference. What COULD make society safer is if we actually made an effort to enforce laws already on the books. The DOJ doesn't even go after people who lie on the the Form 4473 for background checks. Something like .1% of perjuries on Form 4473 are prosecuted. The DOJ doesn't need to wait for congress to pass a new law to strengthen background checks. Doing this will at least begin to deter prohibited people from trying to buy weapons.

 

[smotherhook]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

more taxes? yeah that is what we need

People who use bridges pay tolls. People who drive pay gas taxes. In strict economic reasoning, when you have a cost placed onto society by a certain set of individuals or entities, the way that you get the right amount of consumption of that good is by throwing this new cost back onto the consumers of the good.In plain English, if people want guns they should pay for things associated with them, including now needing to put guards into schools. They shouldn't expect a welfare-esque handout from the rest of the country just so they can enjoy their hobby.

lmao at your last sentence.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

Or we could only tax all the individuals that are scared of guns for us to protect them, that would only cost you $28 per year. That's a small price to pay to protect our children, right?

Yah. And let's tax all the non-smokers to pay for the health care caused by people who smoke.Economics and logic don't work that way.

You know, even if you're fishing to play dumb, you're doing a really crappy job at it. And if you're being serious, well, you should probably just retire without dignity.

Look in the mirror.Comparing smokers with lawful gun owners that have no direct connection to these crimes.

 

[mad sweeney]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

more taxes? yeah that is what we need

People who use bridges pay tolls. People who drive pay gas taxes. In strict economic reasoning, when you have a cost placed onto society by a certain set of individuals or entities, the way that you get the right amount of consumption of that good is by throwing this new cost back onto the consumers of the good.In plain English, if people want guns they should pay for things associated with them, including now needing to put guards into schools. They shouldn't expect a welfare-esque handout from the rest of the country just so they can enjoy their hobby.

lmao at your last sentence.

Wasn't it you that was saying on Wednesday that gun transfer fees would hurt and isn't fair to the hobbyists and collectors?

 

[mad sweeney]

Boy the NRA's stance on having more armed guards in schools sure is wacky and dangerous! My link . Lets all laugh at his crazy idea.

ATLANTA - A student opened fire at his middle school Thursday afternoon, wounding a 14-year-old in the neck before an armed officer working at the school was able to get the gun away, police said.

The wacky idea is arming all the teachers. Nobody has said putting uniformed police officers in schools is a terrible thing. A little frightening and gestapo, maybe, but not totally nuts.I think it's kinda sad if it's the best we can come up with as a solution, but would be ok with it if we funded it by taxing gun/bullet sales/ownership since they're the ones causing the externality. I think people who have looked at the rough math says it would cost about $5-$6 billion per year. With roughly 300 million guns in circulation, it works out to about $15 tax per gun per year.

Or we could only tax all the individuals that are scared of guns for us to protect them, that would only cost you $28 per year. That's a small price to pay to protect our children, right?

Yah. And let's tax all the non-smokers to pay for the health care caused by people who smoke.Economics and logic don't work that way.

You know, even if you're fishing to play dumb, you're doing a really crappy job at it. And if you're being serious, well, you should probably just retire without dignity.

Look in the mirror.Comparing smokers with lawful gun owners that have no direct connection to these crimes.

You've proved his point. He wasn't comparing them. He was comparing the stupid idea of non gun owners paying gun owners for protection vs non smokers paying for smokers' health care. Totally and completely proved his point for him.

 

[ichris]

Wasn't it you that was saying on Wednesday that gun transfer fees would hurt and isn't fair to the hobbyists and collectors?

Nope, that was me. Is it wrong to be concerned with the economic impact new laws will have on the value of assets?So far the reactions to that comment tell me you guys are more interested in penalizing gun owners instead of compromising to make society safer. As I said earlier, policy rooted in hoplophobia will only give gun rights advocates more reasons to dig our heels in deeper.

 

[ATC1]

Look in the mirror.Comparing smokers with lawful gun owners that have no direct connection to these crimes.

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Are you ok with police officers being armed to serve and protect? You are paying for the police to be there, not for the gun to be on school grounds.

 

[smotherhook]

Look in the mirror.Comparing smokers with lawful gun owners that have no direct connection to these crimes.

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Are you ok with police officers being armed to serve and protect? You are paying for the police to be there, not for the gun to be on school grounds.

this is the same guy who said to levy a tax of X amount of dollars per gun every year. so, if i have 40 collector guns that i never shoot (shelf queens) i have to pay 700-800 dollars ayear in taxes on them. jeez, i am going to go take a #### now.

 

[smotherhook]

this is the same guy who said to levy a tax of X amount of dollars per gun every year. so, if i have 40 collector guns that i never shoot (shelf queens) i have to pay 700-800 dollars ayear in taxes on them. jeez, i am going to go take a #### now.

I always thought conservatives favored, "pay your share" and, "take responsibility". Guess not.FWIW, I'd be fine with exempting guns that are permanently disabled. If you want to have a trophy on your wall that can't hurt anybody, that's fine.

share of what? take responsibility for what? permanently disabling a collector firearm is like taking the engine out of a 63 split window coupe (corvette)

 

[ichris]

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Society benefits from the social utility of 2nd amendment rights in ways that significantly outweighs the hazards. There's no question about that. You are just as responsible for Newtown as I am. Yet you demand that I make sacrifices while you aren't willing to at all? We don't need to pass new legislation to strengthen background checks. Simply start enforcing the laws that already exist.

 

[smotherhook]

this is the same guy who said to levy a tax of X amount of dollars per gun every year. so, if i have 40 collector guns that i never shoot (shelf queens) i have to pay 700-800 dollars ayear in taxes on them. jeez, i am going to go take a #### now.

I always thought conservatives favored, "pay your share" and, "take responsibility". Guess not.FWIW, I'd be fine with exempting guns that are permanently disabled. If you want to have a trophy on your wall that can't hurt anybody, that's fine.

share of what? take responsibility for what? permanently disabling a collector firearm is like taking the engine out of a 63 split window coupe (corvette)

Read 4 up.Then pay the tax. Or buy fewer guns. I don't care. Make your own ####### decisions.

no and no

 

[smotherhook]

The guy in Newtown, his mother was a lawful gun owner. She had a connection to the crime. At the end of the day, guns introduce a hazard into our society. And if we make the social judgment that that's ok with us to accept, then fine. But the costs should be borne by the people who enjoy it not everybody else. It's how we do everything, or at least how we should.

Society benefits from the social utility of 2nd amendment rights in ways that significantly outweighs the hazards. There's no question about that.

Gun owners benefit from having guns. My share of enjoyment of 2nd amendment rights is limited to the venison that I turn into jerky at Christmas. But I'm willing to trade that in for reducing gun violence. If you guys don't want to trade in your guns, then the cost should be borne by the people who benefit.This isn't rocket surgery.

trade em in for what?