The CT shooting and gun control
-
BGFalcons82
The 2 child-killers in Boston had a gunfight with the cops the night maggot #1 had his head ran over by maggot #2. The latest gun-grabbing legislation wouldn't have done a damn thing to stop them. -
BoatShoes
Yeah, can't imagine why we would want a permanent resident who has been investigated by the FBI for possibly being a "follower of radical islam" to have to undergo a background check.BGFalcons82;1432616 wrote:The 2 child-killers in Boston had a gunfight with the cops the night maggot #1 had his head ran over by maggot #2. The latest gun-grabbing legislation wouldn't have done a damn thing to stop them.
I mean this is what terrorists say about buying guns in the U.S.:
[video=youtube;EpRQzTP8H1o][/video]“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card,”
But, what does the NRA say when Frank Lautenberg proposed an amendment to remedy that?
Because Firearms manufacturers don't mind if potential Islamic Terrorists are buying guns because it's a very solid market to ensure demand for their product. :thumbup:“There is never a hint about deeply flawed, inaccurate lists, about the impossibility of ever getting off those lists or about the abuses by federal bureaucrats who manage the lists,” -
WebFire
There are already laws in Mass. to prevent these guys from having them. And guess what? They had them illegally. You really think terrorist would get their guns from a place they had to do a background check? :rolleyes:BoatShoes;1432638 wrote:Yeah, can't imagine why we would want a permanent resident who has been investigated by the FBI for possibly being a "follower of radical islam" to have to undergo a background check.
I mean this is what terrorists say about buying guns in the U.S.:
[video=youtube;EpRQzTP8H1o][/video]
But, what does the NRA say when Frank Lautenberg proposed an amendment to remedy that?
Because Firearms manufacturers don't mind if potential Islamic Terrorists are buying guns because it's a very solid market to ensure demand for their product. :thumbup: -
queencitybuckeye“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card,”
Not without breaking a number of laws. Clearly, a lack of legislation is not the problem, yet there are those who beleive additional laws are the solution. What's that saying about the definition of insanity? -
BoatShoes
Why have any laws at all??? Terrorists just break them lol! Notice the Jihadi describe how easy it is.WebFire;1432647 wrote:There are already laws in Mass. to prevent these guys from having them. And guess what? They had them illegally. You really think terrorist would get their guns from a place they had to do a background check? :rolleyes:
And, we've covered several times how America's federal system...with states just in the Northeast alone having lax gun laws...Mass. laws are ineffective.
Why bother trying to pass a background check in Mass. when you can go to a gun show in Maine where you can buy a no questions asked? Of course a rational person isn't going to try to take the risk of passing a background check under those circumstances.
If 15 year olds could buy beer in Michigan without an I.D. do you think people from Ohio would bother trying to buy beer with a Fake ID a store in Ohio?
Being against gun bans and magazine bans is one thing...
Being against more extensive and thorough background checks to try to ensure that only "good guys" get guns....I dunno.... -
BoatShoes
Why have any laws...t3h terrorists just break them.queencitybuckeye;1432656 wrote:“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card,”
Not without breaking a number of laws. Clearly, a lack of legislation is not the problem, yet there are those who beleive additional laws are the solution. What's that saying about the definition of insanity?
Criminals break laws that they think they can get away with breaking. It is easy to get away with breaking Mass. gun laws when you have a right to freely travel to other states. -
justincredible
LOL. Where did that quote come from? If I could go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic weapon I already would have.queencitybuckeye;1432656 wrote:“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card,”
Not without breaking a number of laws. Clearly, a lack of legislation is not the problem, yet there are those who beleive additional laws are the solution. What's that saying about the definition of insanity? -
WebFire
You don't have to go to a gun show to get guns without a background check.BoatShoes;1432660 wrote:Why have any laws at all??? Terrorists just break them lol! Notice the Jihadi describe how easy it is.
And, we've covered several times how America's federal system...with states just in the Northeast alone having lax gun laws...Mass. laws are ineffective.
Why bother trying to pass a background check in Mass. when you can go to a gun show in Maine where you can buy a no questions asked? Of course a rational person isn't going to try to take the risk of passing a background check under those circumstances.
If 15 year olds could buy beer in Michigan without an I.D. do you think people from Ohio would bother trying to buy beer with a Fake ID a store in Ohio?
Being against gun bans and magazine bans is one thing...
Being against more extensive and thorough background checks to try to ensure that only "good guys" get guns....I dunno....
Also, your beer analogy is terribly. Because it's illegal in Michigan and Ohio to purchase under 21. Yet 15 year olds DO find a way to get beer. And they always will. To equate it the the gun laws, do you think raising the ID check to age 40 will keep the 15 year old from getting beer? Hell no, because they aren't following the laws to begin with. -
BoatShoes
As for the background checks, I was just giving an example.WebFire;1432683 wrote:You don't have to go to a gun show to get guns without a background check.
Also, your beer analogy is terribly. Because it's illegal in Michigan and Ohio to purchase under 21. Yet 15 year olds DO find a way to get beer. And they always will. To equate it the the gun laws, do you think raising the ID check to age 40 will keep the 15 year old from getting beer? Hell no, because they aren't following the laws to begin with.
As for the beer example, I agree that 15 year olds still get beer in Ohio and Michigan. Is it it not the case that it is harder for a 16 year old to get beer in Sylvania, OH under current law when you have to get a 21 year old to buy it and can't just cross into Michigan etc. than if that 16 year old could drive north a couple of minutes and buy it himself? Because 15 year olds attempt to find innovative ways to break laws mean that we shouldn't have those laws...that there might not be other reasons why our society has decided they shouldn't buy alcohol, etc.
Why even have laws at all if the lawless, the indecent, will just break them? You guys act like laws are totally and completely ineffective and futile and that they do not change behavior in a lot of cases. Criminals don't fear retribution and don't really take into account the deterrent of potential punishment but they are deterred if the desired ends of the crime are hard to achieve and they perceive that it is unlikely that they will succeed.
After all, that is the same argument pro-gun folks make with regard to "Gun Free Zones". Criminals won't go to a school to kill if they do not think they will succeed because they will be gunned down buy a good-guy with a gun. Yet, they won't exercise more caution if it becomes more difficult for them to obtain firearms in the first place? This is incoherent.
It would certainly be harder for criminals and terrorists to obtain firearms...and maybe even deter the less resolute of them out of fear of getting caught...just like it is harder for the 15 year olds when every state demands to see an I.D. to purchase a beer...the less resolute ones give up and play video games instead. -
BoatShoes
And why would you do that knowing full well that it is illegal??? Obviously you have your own moral inclinations about whether that should be the law or not but it's because it is a crime that is easy to get away with. If there was a high probability of getting caught and ending up in jail you wouldn't do it despite your belief that you think it's a victimless crime for you to obtain an automatic weapon for your own personal use and enjoyment.justincredible;1432676 wrote:LOL. Where did that quote come from? If I could go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic weapon I already would have. -
bases_loaded
justincredible;1432676 wrote:LOL. Where did that quote come from? If I could go to a gun show and buy a fully automatic weapon I already would have.
It came from a liberal quoting a jihadist.
Reputable sources all around. -
WebFire
Because some laws ARE effective. These ones would not be because they do not target the criminals. They target the ones that already follow the law.BoatShoes;1432700 wrote:
Why even have laws at all if the lawless, the indecent, will just break them? You guys act like laws are totally and completely ineffective and futile and that they do not change behavior in a lot of cases. Criminals don't fear retribution and don't really take into account the deterrent of potential punishment but they are deterred if the desired ends of the crime are hard to achieve and they perceive that it is unlikely that they will succeed.
-
O-Trap
Laws which directly protect citizens from being victimized, or which punish those who do victimize, are certainly effective.BoatShoes;1432660 wrote:Why have any laws at all??? Terrorists just break them lol! Notice the Jihadi describe how easy it is.
Once you start building law walls AROUND those kinds of laws, though, you're no longer protecting citizens. You're trying to protect laws.
Think of it like a Christmas present, and (if you don't in real life) pretend you have Goofus and Galant as children. You contemplate putting two layers of wrapping paper around all the gifts. One is to cover the gift. The other is to cover the first layer of wrapping paper.
However, this ends up being useless, because Galant isn't going to unwrap the paper anyway, so no matter how many layers you're putting on the box, you're not solving a problem with Galant, because there isn't one to solve.
This ends up being useless with Goofus as well, because Goofus is going to unwrap as many layers of paper as there are in order to take a peek at his gifts early. So you're not solving a problem with Goofus, because the mentality that caused him to decide to unwrap the first layer will not be curbed by an extra (less problematic) layer.
Increased background checks and such wouldn't address problems that exist and would address problems that don't exist.
BoatShoes;1432660 wrote:Being against more extensive and thorough background checks to try to ensure that only "good guys" get guns....I dunno....
As a not-so-small aside, who gets to decide who the "good guys" are again?
This isn't often true, particularly depending on the end game.BoatShoes;1432700 wrote:Criminals don't fear retribution and don't really take into account the deterrent of potential punishment but they are deterred if the desired ends of the crime are hard to achieve and they perceive that it is unlikely that they will succeed.
Either way, however, criminals throughout history have been good at, as the phrase goes, building a better mousetrap. Without giving it much thought, I could come up with two ways ... just off the top of my head ... whereby one could obtain a firearm without a background check, even if they were 100% mandatory. It wouldn't be difficult, at all. So the notion that making it "hard" will solve anything first assumes that this will make it "harder" instead of just "different."
A law with an immediate and recognizeable victim is certainly a reasonable law. A law that only serves to create a legal buffer for another law, which can be undetected indefinitely if broken, and which has no immediate victim, is superfluous.
BoatShoes;1432700 wrote:It would certainly be harder for criminals and terrorists to obtain firearms...and maybe even deter the less resolute of them out of fear of getting caught...just like it is harder for the 15 year olds when every state demands to see an I.D. to purchase a beer...the less resolute ones give up and play video games instead.
I'm willing to bet there are not many, if any, who are willing to kill and/or die who are not resolute.
This won't make it harder other than having to alter their process.
Reminds me of this:
[video=youtube;aV4CqelFTlA][/video] -
LJ
You can buy a NFA at a gun show. You aren't walking out of the gun show with one, but you can buy it and not go to jail.BoatShoes;1432702 wrote:And why would you do that knowing full well that it is illegal??? Obviously you have your own moral inclinations about whether that should be the law or not but it's because it is a crime that is easy to get away with. If there was a high probability of getting caught and ending up in jail you wouldn't do it despite your belief that you think it's a victimless crime for you to obtain an automatic weapon for your own personal use and enjoyment. -
tk421
I don't know what they hell those people are talking about, but you can't buy a fully automatic weapon without going through an extensive background check, filling out lots of paperwork, and paying a 200 dollar tax. The idea that fully automatic weapons are freely available at gun shows is stupid and completely untrue.
The liberal idea that since the current laws didn't work, clearly more laws will fix the problem is just completely unbelievable to me. I don't understand the logic involved. Criminals and terrorists already do not follow the law, requiring law abiding citizens to have a background check would do absolutely zilch, zero, nada, nothing about criminals. They don't go to the neiborhood gun shop to buy their guns. They don't go to gun shows. They buy on the black market or steal them.
Boatshoes, seriously, help me out with the logic here. I don't understand the liberal position. They already had firearms illegaly, they did not buy them from a gun show or a gun store, how exactly would background checks have made a difference? Will the black market require background checks now? lol, liberal logic makes me laugh. -
Cleveland Buck
Their position is that firearms in the hands of their subjects limits their power, so if they can't completely ban private ownership of guns yet without provoking civil war, they at least want a list of everyone who has them.tk421;1432941 wrote: Boatshoes, seriously, help me out with the logic here. I don't understand the liberal position. They already had firearms illegaly, they did not buy them from a gun show or a gun store, how exactly would background checks have made a difference? Will the black market require background checks now? lol, liberal logic makes me laugh. -
WebFire
And this is the part that liberals just can't wrap their heads around.Cleveland Buck;1432984 wrote:Their position is that firearms in the hands of their subjects limits their power, so if they can't completely ban private ownership of guns yet without provoking civil war, they at least want a list of everyone who has them. -
majorspark
This is the problem the central planners have been fighting since the founding. They took what they could get to get the union contract signed and have been pushing the pendulum towards national rule ever since. The balance of power sucks for them. The balance of power between the three coequal branches of the federal government is tough enough. But the balance of state government power against each other and states against the federal government has been the wrench in the gears of the elitist grand wizards of societal bliss born to usher us into national utopia.BoatShoes;1432660 wrote:And, we've covered several times how America's federal system...with states just in the Northeast alone having lax gun laws...Mass. laws are ineffective.
States pass laws attempting to protect the lives of babies in the womb by state regulatory laws. Yet the citizens of those state have the opportunity to leave the state and as you say render the law of the state "ineffective". Where is your outcry for state laws in lets say Mississippi or North Dakota? 10's of millions of Americans believe that millions more children will be killed in the womb than the classroom.
Ask this guy if he thinks state gun laws are ineffective. Granted his sentence was eventually commuted by NJ governor Christie but had Corzine been reelected he would still be in prison.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/gun_owner_brian_aitken_is_rele.html
Why bother passing any kind of state tax law when you can go to a neighboring state to live or purchase goods with more favorable tax laws? Rendering their taxing power "ineffective". Nationalize it so the central planners can assure all taxing power and laws are effective.BoatShoes;1432660 wrote:Why bother trying to pass a background check in Mass. when you can go to a gun show in Maine where you can buy a no questions asked? Of course a rational person isn't going to try to take the risk of passing a background check under those circumstances. -
gut
I go back and forth on this. On one hand, in our founding days the independence of states made sense because it took days to travel to the next city, much less the next state. But these days, using abortion as an example - it seems pointless and inefficient to outlaw abortion in OH when people can just drive a few hours to IN or MI where it's legal.majorspark;1433228 wrote:But the balance of state government power against each other and states against the federal government has been the wrench in the gears of the elitist grand wizards of societal bliss born to usher us into national utopia.
It's also a great point that if you don't like a state, move to one that better suits you. If CA wants to be a socialist utopia, let CA attract the people it appeals to and let THEIR taxes - not Ohio's or Michigan's - fund it. It is absolutely criminal that someone moves to TX to escape CA's oppressive taxes only to have the federal gubmit confiscate their money to give to CA.
What we really appear to be lacking is a reasonableness test. We shouldn't have overlap between laws and govt programs - something is better done either on the state level (or local level), or the federal level. Speed limits seem like a great example of something best decided on the state & local level. Abortion should be a federal law.
I don't know how you decide necessarily, but some laws should be uniform across states and other laws should remain to be shaped by the geographical and cultural diversity of different states and cities. -
O-Trap
Ultimately, I'm not so sure I agree with this. Here's why:gut;1433231 wrote:I go back and forth on this. On one hand, in our founding days the independence of states made sense because it took days to travel to the next city, much less the next state. But these days, using abortion as an example - it seems pointless and inefficient to outlaw abortion in OH when people can just drive a few hours to IN or MI where it's legal.
It seems (and please do correct me if I am in error here) as though you assume that a state making it illegal is trying to keep people from doing it -- getting an abortion, that is. I'd contend that such is not the case. Why could a city or state not just be trying to keep such doings from happening in their own jurisdictions?
One might say, "Well, they can just go one state over and do it." To be sure, they can, if a neighboring state permits it. We've seen this happen with marriages (same-sex couples as well as state age restrictions on marriage). Ultimately, though, why is that necessarily a problem?
It would seem that if the authority for such a thing is limited to state borders (and I submit that it was designed to be so), then doing it at a federal level is no more necessary today as it was back when travel was less convenient.
To put it another way, why ought we not view it this way: A state's matters : federal level :: federal matters : international level? Why not leave state matters as they are, and if someone chooses to cross state lines to find a state that has decided that such actions are permitted, let them do so? Is it so different from people traveling internationally and engaging in behavior that is permitted internationally, despite the fact that it is not permitted in their home country (drug use, for example)?
Why? Technically, crimes of murder are handled at the state level. Why ought abortion be so different?gut;1433231 wrote:Abortion should be a federal law.
I agree with this, but I'd suggest that those things which ought to be determined at the federal level should be few and far between as outlined by the "leash" that was originally put on the federal government to keep it from taking too much power to control and/or subdue the states. There are certain responsibilities that have been granted to the federal government, and rules and laws that are directly related to those responsibilities ought to indeed be handled at the federal level. Beyond those, however, I think we'd essentially be using subjectivism to determine what "should" be handled at the federal level. I don't know about you, but I trust a body of government less and less as the scope and scale of it gets larger and larger, because I'd submit that the potential of abuse is simply more "available" for the lack of a better descriptor.gut;1433231 wrote:I don't know how you decide necessarily, but some laws should be uniform across states and other laws should remain to be shaped by the geographical and cultural diversity of different states and cities.
This is why (and I take a half step away from my Libertarian leanings in this regard) I'm more okay with disclosure requirements regarding firearm ownership at the state level than I am at the federal level. A person has a constitutional right to "keep" (read "own") and "bear" (read "carry") arms, but beyond that, it would appear that the state has the constitutional grounds to require disclosure of that ownership, provided it does not use such disclosure to stifle the constitutional right to "keep and bear" them. I'm not okay with this at the federal level, because I see no permission for it to be handled at the federal level, but based on the Tenth Amendment within the U. S. Constitution, I see it as an option available to the states, provided that it does not inhibit the rights granted to citizens by the Second Amendment. -
gut
The first point is valid, but I don't buy that as the logic behind their positions at all. If it's legal, why should a medical procedure be a state matter? If they don't want to commit resources to regulate it, then that cries for federal oversight even more.O-Trap;1433233 wrote:Why could a city or state not just be trying to keep such doings from happening in their own jurisdictions?
One might say, "Well, they can just go one state over and do it." To be sure, they can, if a neighboring state permits it. We've seen this happen with marriages (same-sex couples as well as state age restrictions on marriage). Ultimately, though, why is that necessarily a problem?
My issue with the latter is it's a waste of time and resources to decide this issue, 50 different times, dozens of court cases, etc...and then it still never seems to be a done deal. And to what end? What is the return on all that time and resources when they drive a few hours and get the abortion any way? There's no return on moral grandstanding.
Your international example is apples and oranges. It's a matter of sovereignty. US states are not sovereign. As US citizens, it makes perfect sense that the posted speeding limit is relevant to where I happen to be driving, but how would recognition of someone's gay marriage be more or less relevant to a neighbor in CA or OH? It's utterly asinine for something to be legal one state and illegal another when no one but the people in question are affected.
I agree about inefficiency as govt grows. That is precisely why we need to reduce the overlap and redundancy. You read my post and assumed it all only goes one direction - there is plenty the federal govt needs to get out of and leave to the states (welfare, education....) -
BoatShoes
How is it that Frank Lautenberg's amendment to have background checks include potential terrorist databases like the one's Tamerlan was on not target people we as a society through our intelligence agencies are concerned might perform criminal/terrorist acts?WebFire;1432725 wrote:Because some laws ARE effective. These ones would not be because they do not target the criminals. They target the ones that already follow the law. -
BoatShoes
But wait that's right....the National Firearm's Act was passed in 1934 and yet we don't have a lot of gun violence with machine guns. The Jihadi doesn't know what he's talking about. It's tough to get guns that were prohibited by Congress in 1934! He should not have said automatic weapons because obviously a Jihadi can't get those because they have been prohibited by the government. And yet we know that firearms legislation that targets other types of weapons necessarily won't be effective. :rolleyes:LJ;1432910 wrote:You can buy a NFA at a gun show. You aren't walking out of the gun show with one, but you can buy it and not go to jail. -
BoatShoes
It is a problem that people on terrorist watch lists can by firearms...any where...without having that watch list checked. Tamerlan was denied citizenship after a "routine background check". No reason the person selling him the gun should not have to run one if they want to sell it to him and if they do not they should be civilly and/or criminally liable for any deaths in which that weapon was used.O-Trap;1432908 wrote:Increased background checks and such wouldn't address problems that exist and would address problems that don't exist. -
BoatShoes
It's not about more laws...it is about smart laws. To me, the state by state regime for firearms regulation is clearly a failure. (State by state regime's have been a failure in a lot of other areas to....i.e. health insurance).tk421;1432941 wrote:I don't know what they hell those people are talking about, but you can't buy a fully automatic weapon without going through an extensive background check, filling out lots of paperwork, and paying a 200 dollar tax. The idea that fully automatic weapons are freely available at gun shows is stupid and completely untrue.
The liberal idea that since the current laws didn't work, clearly more laws will fix the problem is just completely unbelievable to me. I don't understand the logic involved. Criminals and terrorists already do not follow the law, requiring law abiding citizens to have a background check would do absolutely zilch, zero, nada, nothing about criminals. They don't go to the neiborhood gun shop to buy their guns. They don't go to gun shows. They buy on the black market or steal them.
Boatshoes, seriously, help me out with the logic here. I don't understand the liberal position. They already had firearms illegaly, they did not buy them from a gun show or a gun store, how exactly would background checks have made a difference? Will the black market require background checks now? lol, liberal logic makes me laugh.
It is also funny that you say that fully automatic weapons aren't freely available....why is that?? The Islamist clearly doesn't know what he's talking about does he? Oh that's right, because those types of weapons were regulated nationally in 1934. Your acknowledgement that they are not widely available to criminals and would be terrorists acknowledges the effectiveness of national firearams legislation. It is laughable that you're talking about the futility of better/more/national firearms legislation when you're talking about how effective the National Firearms Act has been at eliminating fully automatic weapons from getting in the hands of criminals/terrorists :laugh:
In addition to background checks, if you sell a firearm to a person on a terrorist watch list on the black market without checking his background you ought to be personally responsible for the deaths the criminal/terrorist causes.
And, for that matter, I'm not sure but I haven't heard that they know where Tamerlan got the 9mm handgun from yet.