I should have been clearer. The over-arching concept, not the statute. We can all agree that some people, due to various circumstances, should not have access to firearms. And I think, for the most part, that we agree on these circumstances. It is these people that should be on a registry, not the law-abiding people. They have it backwards.

Yes it does put the burden of proof on me. And the entire concept of a permit is an infringement. Lets just ignore the financial screw-job aspect of it.

Yes you are. In fact, you are suggesting that this infringement be extended to cover all states, because apparantly, misery loves company even when that misery is unacknowledged. This is more conformity as a defense to some conformity. Not a winning argument in my book. More compromises to please the anti-gunners is the same as rolling over and baring your throat. I dont care how you church it up.

Yes, there is a reason I cant walk into a gun store and just use my state ID to purchase a firearm: Because some misguided but well-meaning jackasses let this get through the legislature while I was living in another state, and now, if I want to purchase additional firearms in my home state, I must jump through more hoops, hoops that apparently were set up with the complicity of the "pro-gun" community. The only gunstores that IMO, are worth a shit, refuse to deal with people who do not "get in line" with the permit to purchase B.S. because there is now a stigma associated with these people. Using the "management reserves the right to refuse service" to justify a "they must have something to hide" argument, so now its a sort of socially constructed infringement as opposed to a legal one. Semantics. But the effect is the same. Brilliant.





I hate typing. Seriously.

Absolutely. But the idea that you are going to do anything at all to limit their access to guns by imposing restrictions on the law-abiding is flat-out nonsense.

People who are willing to break the law will always be able to obtain guns. There's nothing we can do to change that.

I don't mean "there's nothing we can do to change that, without infringing on basic human freedoms". I mean there's nothing we can do to change that, even if we stamp out every individual right and liberty.

Jamaica, faced with a serious gun violence problem, imposed the most draconian gun laws imaginable. They declared martial law, and demanded that every firearm and every cartridge be turned in immediately. They declared that anyone caught with even one bullet would be immediately incarcerated without trial.

The result? The criminals and the gangs still had all the guns they wanted, and violence got worse.

Imposing restrictions on the law-abiding as a way of dealing with violent criminals makes as much sense as searching for your car keys under a streetlight, when you know you dropped them in a dark alley, because the light is better.

If you impose restrictions on the law-abiding, they will abide by them. That's part of who they are. But in exchange for the burden you have placed on them, you will see zero social benefit. Criminals won't be inconvenienced in the slightest.

You are quoting me, quoting someone else. Credit where credit is due. Gyrefalcon is responsible for the line you quoted at the top of your post.





Edit: I agree with what you said.

Coming at this as an agnostic on private gun sales, this is probably the most coherent and objective argument against the elimination of the "gunshow loophole" I have seen so far.

It is kind of what I was getting at with my rewrite of the law suggestion. I am proposing that we have equal rights to criminals. I think the founding fathers knew, and wrote the second ammendment the way they did because they were wise. They did not write "shall not be infringed except for reasonable, blah, blah, blah" They wrote shall not be infringed. Criminals aren't infringed upon by gun control laws (of any flavor) so the only reason the government would want to infringe on the people's write to keep and bear arms would be to suppress the people. So the criminals get their Constitutional rights and the citizen is supressed? That doesn't sound right. It should be reversed.

Gun grabbers tend to like to use an argument that the Militia are the only intended recipients of the 2nd ammendment and thus the second amendment only really applies to military grade weapons . .. .. but then they turn around and suggest that it is bad for us to have military grade weapons with their various AWB B.S. It is obvious this is about supressing the people, about disarming the militia and making a country of slaves where only the criminal is free.

Sometimes I think we should apply an "island hopping" (from Pacific WWII) type strategy in getting these laws fixed. Lets go attack the 1934 NFA .. . which would cut the 1968, 1986, and AWB laws loose or at least give states a freer hand to decide how they want to regulate. What other laws could be attacked that would reach forward and undermine some bad laws? Perhaps I just got ahead of myself in suggesting the 2A is the only reasonable gun control law.

jdege wrote:


Jamaica, England, Australia, Washington DC, Chicago....
Worldwide, gun control laws have proven to be a dismal failure at reducing crime for the simple reason that criminals don't obey them. In many (most) cases these laws have had the opposite effect. There are serious crime problems in this country but further restrictions on law abiding gun owners and further erosion of 2A rights of those citizens will not solve those problems. The effort has to be first to keep violent offeners locked up instead of repetedly letting them back out to prey on society. and second to take an honest, open look at the root causes of crime and figure out how to stop potential offenders from becoming offenders.

I bring up Jamaica in particular because the crackdown on guns was the most draconian.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel103000.shtml

I am sure that if the authorities in Jamaica pass one more gun law, this time a little more restrictive, they will eliminate all crime once and for all.

Of course there are reasons to close the gun show loophole!

See here:

Laws exist to define what is and is not acceptable in a society under most circumstances. Some criminals will abide by certain laws if they fear the repercussions.

Even if criminals don't abide by any law, having good laws in place can effect how they're able to commit crimes.

Is anyone in this forum going to disagree that the laws in place regarding explosives has not prevented their use in criminal endeavors in society?

Besides the gross distortions of facts and lies... they're is a grain of truth. Look at number 6...

Apples and oranges. The topic is firearms.

You are all wrong. Laws don't prevent crime, create punishment, nor do they define the social mores of a country.

Laws CREATE crime.

They may or may not have it backwards depending upon how many criminals they're dealing with!

My point is that for a background check to work people who are able to own firearms, from those who can't need to be identified. This needs to happen both for private sales and dealer sales.

If the "pro-gun" community doesn't get a system in place that does this I'm sure the anti-gun community will. Can you agree that it's better to police your own industry, than to have others do it for you? Why shouldn't the NRA or other pro gun group put forth legislation that allows proper background checks, and prevents registration and other privacy infringements we're all concerned about?

If the legislation loses, that's fine... BLAME the anti-gun community. If it wins, then we all win by having a more standardized and concise set of laws that doesn't infringe on our liberties.

Fine replace "explosives" with firearms...