Bernie Sanders Brags About His ‘D-‘ from the NRA

[mect]

It's already been explained to you, you just didn't like the answer and arbitrarily declared it to be a logistical nightmare. Nothing more than hand waving. The fact that you are trying so hard to find problems with this and have only been able to come up with such weak ones says it all really. I think the perfect encapsulation was when you said that we shouldn't background check people because those who failed it could become violent. Meaning that the alternative was we should just give those hair trigger people weapons without a check, lol.

If you just hand wave away common sense answers to your issues that's fine. You can't expect people to care much about what you ask for in the future though.

Unless you have a rigorously maintained national gun registry, Bozack is completely correct. There would be almost zero chance of being able to prove private party sales took place. All a person does is claim the firearm was stolen, and how are you ever going to prove that it wasn't? Are you going to mandate all stolen guns are reported. Now you're going to have gun owners just report their firearms as stolen, and then they can do whatever the hell they want with them. Add to that all the guns that are already in circulation, and it becomes a ridiculous proposition. It would be similar to trying to prosecute someone for burning a dvd for a friend. Yes, its illegal, but no one is ever going to fear getting prosecuted for it. In the case of burning the DVD, the law is really there to send the message that it is wrong, and hope that law abiding citizens won't rip DVD's as a result. In the case of gun sales, the gun sale itself isn't wrong, and so we aren't actually trying to prevent law abiding citizens from doing it. Just like with a private party burning illegal DVDs, I just don't see anyone ever being prosecuted over it.

 

[chucky2]

snip

This is why having single payer and a National ID would be so advantageous. A website could be setup that allows the seller to input the public view of the buyers National ID (arrived at not just by the public National ID number but by a time expired key the buyer generates and gives to the seller). The seller can then determine that the buyer is indeed who he says he is, and the backend data can simply feed a green Valid result for firearm sales. The buyer is protected because he/she has only given the seller a time expired public view of their National ID, and the seller is protected because they now know as far as the Gov is concerned, this is a person who legitly can possess a firearm. The States can require their buyer/seller to opt into this system as they see fit, to preserve States Rights. But it's not going to work as well as it could without a National ID type system that integrate health professional feedback automagically. And of course, we'd need ironclad clear guidelines on how health professional feedback is going to be F'ing over firearm purchasers. We don't need Activist Healthcare "Professionals" deciding they're going to be practicing their activism via their feedback into the system. So yeah, devil is in the details.

I admit I've only read portions of this thread, but I didn't see the word "suicide" anywhere. When it comes to gun rights, shouldn't we at least talk about the source of 62% of gun deaths in this country?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37978270&postcount=181

The only ones we really need to talk about are minors who obtain access to a firearm to commit their own suicide. Adults offing themselves is them controlling their own bodies, and thus does not need discussion.

 

[ivwshane]

This is why having single payer and a National ID would be so advantageous. A website could be setup that allows the seller to input the public view of the buyers National ID (arrived at not just by the public National ID number but by a time expired key the buyer generates and gives to the seller). The seller can then determine that the buyer is indeed who he says he is, and the backend data can simply feed a green Valid result for firearm sales. The buyer is protected because he/she has only given the seller a time expired public view of their National ID, and the seller is protected because they now know as far as the Gov is concerned, this is a person who legitly can possess a firearm. The States can require their buyer/seller to opt into this system as they see fit, to preserve States Rights. But it's not going to work as well as it could without a National ID type system that integrate health professional feedback automagically. And of course, we'd need ironclad clear guidelines on how health professional feedback is going to be F'ing over firearm purchasers. We don't need Activist Healthcare "Professionals" deciding they're going to be practicing their activism via their feedback into the system. So yeah, devil is in the details.



http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37978270&postcount=181

The only ones we really need to talk about are minors who obtain access to a firearm to commit their own suicide. Adults offing themselves is them controlling their own bodies, and thus does not need discussion.

I disagree, there should be a legal and safe way for people to kill themselves.

 

[chucky2]

I disagree, there should be a legal and safe way for people to kill themselves.

Um...are you saying there should be a legal and safe way for a minor to kill themselves without their legal guardian having input?

Or are you talking about adults? Or both?

 

[michal1980]

You didn't bother reading your own link did you?


California let people register weapons that were banned so they could keep them, the governor tried to let people continue registering their weapons after the registration period had ended (a violation of the law) and people took advantage. The government was sued and they were told that any weapon registered after the deadline was against the law.
This was not a move that was intended to be a gun grab via registration, despite your dishonest attempts to spin it as such. People who followed the law and registered before the deadline got to keep their weapons. Unfortunately, a government official tried to go around the law and people got screwed. I have no idea if any of the illegally registered guns were actually confiscated but my understanding was that subsequent laws allowed for a "clean up" of the original weapons control act of 1989 but I can't find info on it.

So in summary what you posted was the exact opposite of what happened. A ban was passed, a waiver was offered if you followed certain requirements, the governor tried to go around the law and a judge ruled that was illegal, new law was passed to clean up the surprise ruling.

So what is the point of gun registration?

You claim your not trying to ban or take peoples guns away,

Yet we have proof in the past that registration laws did just that.

2) if people dont register their guns then what happens?

Logically they would lose their guns if caught. (and probably end up in jail, fined, lose their right to own guns in the future, etc etc)

So please spare us the lie that your not after taking away peoples guns when that is what you really want and thats what your going after.

 

[buckshot24]

I disagree, there should be a legal and safe way for people to kill themselves.

Safe for whom?

 

[ivwshane]

Um...are you saying there should be a legal and safe way for a minor to kill themselves without their legal guardian having input?

Or are you talking about adults? Or both?

Come on! I'm talking about adults!

 

[chucky2]

Come on! I'm talking about adults!

Then I don't know why you were quoting me. Minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms, so clearly we're talking about a purchasing and registration system in this thread for adults. If an adult wants to blow his/her brains out, well then, so be it. Who are we to say how they should control their bodies? Unless there is some actual real number of people trying to commit suicide by firearm, missing themselves, and having the shot hit not-themselves, it doesn't sound like a problem that needs to be tackled.

 

[ivwshane]

So what is the point of gun registration?

You claim your not trying to ban or take peoples guns away,

Yet we have proof in the past that registration laws did just that.

2) if people dont register their guns then what happens?

Logically they would lose their guns if caught. (and probably end up in jail, fined, lose their right to own guns in the future, etc etc)

So please spare us the lie that your not after taking away peoples guns when that is what you really want and thats what your going after.

There was a gun ban law, if you registered you got to keep your gun, if you didn't you were in violation of the law, the punishment was a fine it or jail time. There wasn't a confiscation of legal guns, there was a buy back program and some even paid more than what the guns were worth at the time.

The point of the law was to stop the amount of a certain type of gun from entering the state.

 

[interchange]

Absolutely! There are many gun violence issues and not all of them can be solved the same way.
Having a proper health care system that covers mental health is one thing that should be a top priority.

No mental health system or treatment can hope to be half as successful as means restriction.

And people who actually complete suicide are highly unlikely to seek out mental health care in that moment. In fact, the beliefs that lead to suicide are those of being a burden to others, not being valued by others, fear of rejection by others, etc.

Actually, I think the fantasy of beefing up mental health care to solve this and other problems (e.g. mass violent crimes and substance abuse) serves to promote them. Deflecting a reality (lifetime prevalence of any mental health disorder is >50% in the US) as a specialized problem just further isolates those who have ever thought that maybe they needed help.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Come on! I'm talking about adults!

Make sure your house is empty, grab your favorite libation, close your garage door, get it your car and turn it on, cue up your favorite music, enjoy your libation, go to sleep. *

*For the not so bright, I'm speaking in general terms here. Not referencing anyone specifically.

 

[ivwshane]

Then I don't know why you were quoting me. Minors shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms, so clearly we're talking about a purchasing and registration system in this thread for adults. If an adult wants to blow his/her brains out, well then, so be it. Who are we to say how they should control their bodies? Unless there is some actual real number of people trying to commit suicide by firearm, missing themselves, and having the shot hit not-themselves, it doesn't sound like a problem that needs to be tackled.

Because someone who kills themselves isn't the only one affected. People who die from suicide don't just magically disappear along with all of their possessions. Not only that but suicide is typically a cry for help and should be treated as such.

 

[ivwshane]

No mental health system or treatment can hope to be half as successful as means restriction.

And people who actually complete suicide are highly unlikely to seek out mental health care in that moment. In fact, the beliefs that lead to suicide are those of being a burden to others, not being valued by others, fear of rejection by others, etc.

Actually, I think the fantasy of beefing up mental health care to solve this and other problems (e.g. mass violent crimes and substance abuse) serves to promote them. Deflecting a reality (lifetime prevalence of any mental health disorder is >50% in the US) as a specialized problem just further isolates those who have ever thought that maybe they needed help.

Which is why I'm for a legal and safe way to kill yourself. If someone is suicidal and has a way to do it without burdening loved ones, I would think they would seek that out.

 

[chucky2]

Because someone who kills themselves isn't the only one affected. People who die from suicide don't just magically disappear along with all of their possessions. Not only that but suicide is typically a cry for help and should be treated as such.

That's not a 2A problem, that's a medical issue. We shouldn't be infringing on 2A because an adult wants to kill themselves. The only way we could even possibly do that is actually have a system I replied to DrPizza about and have medical professionals indicate to 'the system' that feeds the Valid/Invalid result displayed to the seller that the buyer is not mentally stable.

That is going to cause one hell of an issue when medical professionals start weighing in on gray areas that will end up violating someones 2A rights. Can you imagine if we rolled out a system that did that for the killing of unborn people but applied that to the mothers? There would be a verifiable shitstorm of Lefties literally going bezerk. We'd have absolutely terrified women going batshit that they couldn't screw and get rid of their responsibility (unilaterally, until the kid is born, then poof!, man is on hook for at least 50%) at will. So I don't know how that would work with 2A...probably actually greatest challenge apart from getting people to use the system...

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Bernie Sanders position on guns is fairly moderate to be honest. It basically mirrors my position, and frankly most of that of the US.

The NRA doesn't represent it's own members. It represents their own interests.

 

[1sikbITCH]

As the democrats say, if we can save one life then it is worth it.

So, when do we start restricting religion?

Republicans do not want to restrict religion. From Faith Based initiatives to fighting for Christmas in schools to this:

“How about the rest of us? Right-winging, bitter-clinging, proud clingers of our guns, our God, and our religion, and our Constitution.”

You are just continuing Bush's crusade against Muslims. Own it.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

A lot of republicans absolutely want to restrict religions! Just not Christianity, they want to make that a theocracy. I am not talking about the politicians, but some people in the general population, thought it might apply to some of them too.

 

[interchange]

That's not a 2A problem, that's a medical issue. We shouldn't be infringing on 2A because an adult wants to kill themselves. The only way we could even possibly do that is actually have a system I replied to DrPizza about and have medical professionals indicate to 'the system' that feeds the Valid/Invalid result displayed to the seller that the buyer is not mentally stable.

That is going to cause one hell of an issue when medical professionals start weighing in on gray areas that will end up violating someones 2A rights. Can you imagine if we rolled out a system that did that for the killing of unborn people but applied that to the mothers? There would be a verifiable shitstorm of Lefties literally going bezerk. We'd have absolutely terrified women going batshit that they couldn't screw and get rid of their responsibility (unilaterally, until the kid is born, then poof!, man is on hook for at least 50%) at will. So I don't know how that would work with 2A...probably actually greatest challenge apart from getting people to use the system...

Having a system that seeks to identify mental health disorders and discriminate against them is about the worst possible thing we could do in this country.

Having a system that equally applies reasonable barriers to obtaining guns for all people will reduce gun related deaths, the majority of which are suicides. It is not infringing on rights. It is merely requiring some demonstration of some responsibility for access to something highly lethal.

Not too different from licensing of drivers.

 

[chucky2]

Having a system that seeks to identify mental health disorders and discriminate against them is about the worst possible thing we could do in this country.

Why?

Having a system that equally applies reasonable barriers to obtaining guns for all people will reduce gun related deaths, the majority of which are suicides.

So lets be clear here: You don't want a system that infringes on just crazy peoples 2A rights, you want a system that infringes on everyone's 2A rights ('shall not be infringed'...I sense a Nick appearance soon to say this doesn't mean what it blatantly means lulz), but it has "reasonable barriers", which means, each and every Gun Grabber opportunity there will be more and more push, more and more constant indoctrination to further those mm gains towards that mile, until eventually "reasonable barriers" is just majority restriction.

People keep bringing up suicide as a reason for 2A infringement, and I do not understand why. If we are talking about adult suicide, these are adults. What they choose to do with their own body is their business and their business alone. Yes suicide is generally a bad thing but it is their bad thing and their decision. If you all don't want them to commit suicide that's great, find a non-2A infringing way to prevent it.

It is not infringing on rights. It is merely requiring some demonstration of some responsibility for access to something highly lethal.

Not too different from licensing of drivers.

It's not infringing on our rights unless it's infringing on our rights, right? 2A doesn't say nor imply, Demonstrate you comply with whatever laws and policies the Politicians cook up before you can possess a firearm they have deemed you're allowed to have. They specifically put 'shall not infringe' in there for a reason, so the Gov couldn't keep cooking up whatever BS they wanted to cook up to infringe on the populace possessing firearms.

How is having a demonstration of responsibility going to help the next massacre or suicide? So they demonstrate responsibility today, and tomorrow, blow their head off or go shoot up a school. You've infringed on everyone buying a firearm and haven't prevented a thing.

Break down what "reasonable barriers" and "demonstration of some responsibility" that you're referring to are going to be, maybe you are saying something I'm just not getting. Given the Gun Grabber mantra of 'take any mm to get that mile in', I'm a skeptic.

 

[interchange]

So lets be clear here: You don't want a system that infringes on just crazy peoples 2A rights, you want a system that infringes on everyone's 2A rights

You are making my point just in this sentence. You are splitting of half of Americans as being "crazy" and question why it might be wrong to create policies that ostracize half of our population -- a population who more often than not, does not seek help because they already marginalized. These policies and this talk merely confirms their suspicions that they will have their rights infringed and will be judged harshly merely for needing help. And the numbers seeking treatment because they feel it's safe to do so will go down. And the numbers who buy guns or shoot heroin or get drunk every night will go up and up and up.

I am not qualified to render an opinion on whether gun laws violate the 2nd amendment. All I can say is that we have gun laws currently and the supreme court isn't jumping to call them unconstitutional.

As far as will this test of responsibility do anything, I'll pose a counter scenario.

Say you started a college, and it was a really good one, and got a bunch of people.
Say next year you required an application to be sent via certified mail.
And next year you required an essay to be filled out after the application was received.
And the next year you required a copy of your birth certificate.
And the next year you required registration on-line.
And the next year you didn't open applications until 30 days after registration.
Etc. Etc.

Do those policies infringe on anyone's right to apply to the school?

Well, for sure your # of applications are going to go way down.

 

[chucky2]

You are making my point just in this sentence. You are splitting of half of Americans as being "crazy"

While it is true I'd deem the half of Americans who believe we need to take from productive people/deficit spend/borrow and give to people using that money to buy Pepsi and Cheetos as "crazy", in the context you've chosen here, I'm at a loss of who you think I'm referring to for you to say I think half of Americans are crazy. I never said nor implied half of Americans are crazy...where did you get that from?

and question why it might be wrong to create policies that ostracize half of our population -- a population who more often than not, does not seek help because they already marginalized. These policies and this talk merely confirms their suspicions that they will have their rights infringed and will be judged harshly merely for needing help. And the numbers seeking treatment because they feel it's safe to do so will go down. And the numbers who buy guns or shoot heroin or get drunk every night will go up and up and up.

I don't even understand what you are saying here. My previous post is talking about not wanting to infringe on 2A for every firearms purchaser just because some adults choose to commit suicide by firearm. You're now talking about how I think half of Americans are crazy and that I think these half of all Americans who I think are crazy are going to have their rights infringed on will now buy guns shoot heroin and/or get drunk every night in greater numbers. Are you at the end of a 48 hour shift or something?

I am not qualified to render an opinion on whether gun laws violate the 2nd amendment. All I can say is that we have gun laws currently and the supreme court isn't jumping to call them unconstitutional.

Yes, the 3rd branch of the massive Fed Gov isn't jumping - yet - to declare current firearm laws unconstitutional. And if Bernie or Billary get elected and could put 4 liberal SC justices in during their tenure, and stock the SC towards the left, do you think that same SC branch wouldn't want to be interpreting things differently, despite what the constitution says and those that wrote it meant? The SC is not infallible, nor do the people who are appointed to it immune from indoctrination, slant, agendas, etc. Because the SC has ruled current infringements are constitutional doesn't really mean they are, it just means that's their current interpretation by an entity of the massive Fed Gov.

As far as will this test of responsibility do anything, I'll pose a counter scenario.

We don't need a counter scenario. Tell us how infringing on every firearm purchase/owner is going to stop a sane today owner from going batshit tomorrow and blowing his brains out or going to shoot up a school.

Say you started a college, and it was a really good one, and got a bunch of people.
Say next year you required an application to be sent via certified mail.
And next year you required an essay to be filled out after the application was received.
And the next year you required a copy of your birth certificate.
And the next year you required registration on-line.
And the next year you didn't open applications until 30 days after registration.
Etc. Etc.

Do those policies infringe on anyone's right to apply to the school?

Well, for sure your # of applications are going to go way down.

Oh yes, as I'm sure Haaahvahd will put a study out on, it is a massive infringement to provide a birth certificate. An impossibility.

 

[ivwshane]

That's not a 2A problem, that's a medical issue. We shouldn't be infringing on 2A because an adult wants to kill themselves. The only way we could even possibly do that is actually have a system I replied to DrPizza about and have medical professionals indicate to 'the system' that feeds the Valid/Invalid result displayed to the seller that the buyer is not mentally stable.

That is going to cause one hell of an issue when medical professionals start weighing in on gray areas that will end up violating someones 2A rights. Can you imagine if we rolled out a system that did that for the killing of unborn people but applied that to the mothers? There would be a verifiable shitstorm of Lefties literally going bezerk. We'd have absolutely terrified women going batshit that they couldn't screw and get rid of their responsibility (unilaterally, until the kid is born, then poof!, man is on hook for at least 50%) at will. So I don't know how that would work with 2A...probably actually greatest challenge apart from getting people to use the system...

No sorry, I disagree. If you want solutions to complex issue sometimes it requires complex answers and sometimes those answers require limitations on our rights (I'd say a law that doesn't remove the ability to own a gun or how one uses it is hardly a violation of that right).

You are right though that it won't be easy nor will everyone be happy. The best we can do is have everyone from all sides work together with a straight forward goal in mind.

 

[bozack]

It's already been explained to you, you just didn't like the answer and arbitrarily declared it to be a logistical nightmare. Nothing more than hand waving. The fact that you are trying so hard to find problems with this and have only been able to come up with such weak ones says it all really. I think the perfect encapsulation was when you said that we shouldn't background check people because those who failed it could become violent. Meaning that the alternative was we should just give those hair trigger people weapons without a check, lol.

If you just hand wave away common sense answers to your issues that's fine. You can't expect people to care much about what you ask for in the future though.

No it hasn't been explained in the least, you have vaguely said what you would like to see in place (which will do nothing) and then gave absolutely no details on how it would actually work or be enforced except one silly suggestion of mandating all folks effectively use current gun dealers as their intermediate to registration.

And the violence thing was just a far out example, my point was more that we are now going to be putting individuals in charge or running background checks on folks and then breaking the news to them, news which may or may not be a surprise but its still a potentially awkward situation.

I have not seen one single "common sense" answer provided in this thread by you, period so pretty laughable you're suggesting I wave them off.

Unless you have a rigorously maintained national gun registry, Bozack is completely correct. There would be almost zero chance of being able to prove private party sales took place. All a person does is claim the firearm was stolen, and how are you ever going to prove that it wasn't? Are you going to mandate all stolen guns are reported. Now you're going to have gun owners just report their firearms as stolen, and then they can do whatever the hell they want with them. Add to that all the guns that are already in circulation, and it becomes a ridiculous proposition. It would be similar to trying to prosecute someone for burning a dvd for a friend. Yes, its illegal, but no one is ever going to fear getting prosecuted for it. In the case of burning the DVD, the law is really there to send the message that it is wrong, and hope that law abiding citizens won't rip DVD's as a result. In the case of gun sales, the gun sale itself isn't wrong, and so we aren't actually trying to prevent law abiding citizens from doing it. Just like with a private party burning illegal DVDs, I just don't see anyone ever being prosecuted over it.

I was trying to get them to double down on and actually admit it would be a necessity but apparently they are afraid to for whatever reason.

the only way this works is with a gun registry and possibly mandating that folks do all gun related transactions either at federal offices set up to process said transactions or by trying to leverage current licensed dealers but good luck with that as it becomes a liability issue on their part, and honestly how many dealers will want to have folks going into their shop just to run background checks on items they aren't selling...don't see this happening at all, and if it ever was mandated I can see them charging a fee.

even with this plenty of folks could still skirt the law given how many guns are out there and also there won't be any spot checks without a massive uproar.

 

[OverVolt]

The NRA is a ridiculous organization.

Oddly enough the NRA solely exists because of gun grabbers. Its ironic isn't it?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Oddly enough the NRA solely exists because of gun grabbers. Its ironic isn't it?

No, they exist, because dumb people believe what you just wrote, and that gives them political leverage to get what they want.