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

[ivwshane]

But clearly we already have all the laws we need on the books, and look where we are at today. More laws are not going to do anything. People who ignore the laws because they DGAF (whether it's because they're that type of person and/or they're mental) aren't going to magically start following these new "Common Sense" laws because gosh golly, we really mean it this time! I followed the law when I got my Glock, because for the most part I respect the law and currently wish to follow it. If I regress to a non-law abiding individual and want to make a shady firearm sale, guess what? Not a f*cking law you have on the books is going to stop me. So what is the point of the new "Common Sense" laws then?



If no one cares, that's great! I don't need to be in a database then since they don't care. What's that? Someone cares (today, tomorrow, whenever)? Sounds like I have a valid concern (well, except for the firearms that fell overboard on a boating trip...those are gone forever I guess........)



I wasn't being a smart @ss, I was being completely genuine. Go and look at some firearm websites and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. There are a lot of options, especially for the modular pistols that are ever so popular with the crowd that stringently follows all those laws you think are perfectly adhered to. How many aftermarket triggers for just a Glock G19 alone? Jesus don't even bring AR platform into this. Then you get into parts of the trigger. What you'd have to do with your idea is to have the manufacturers come up with a lower design that has different mounting points for the assemblies that are 'smart', such that retrofitting current non-'smart' parts into a new 'smart' lower would not be possible. Then you'd have to treat any sale of non-'smart' parts for these new 'smart' lowers like they do for burst/auto ARs, except probably be even more psycho about it. Otherwise I buy your smart gun (in theory an idea that at least can help combat my #1 for minor and #4, if the gun owner hasn't allowed the 'smart' gun to be used by the minor or if the firearm is recovered for the shooting in #4), get whatever I need to make it non-'smart', and now your legislation and poll tax passed onto me the gun buyer to pay for the new 'smart' features is completely worthless (well, worthless in Realityland...it was worth something to the Politicians who got their brownie points with their pet Gun Grabber constituency for 'do something!, anything!, to fight this epidemic! ((and get that mm while you can!))).

Seriously, go look at how many lower triggers there are out there...

I'm ignoring most of your blather because my other posts have already covered it.

But I'll address this one issue: I don't think current guns should be required to be retrofitted. Not only is that a huge burden on gun owners and would undoubtedly affect the value of the gun, it's implementation would be extremely costly to implement and enforce by the government and as you mentioned it could easily be undone.
So what would be the point? Forced obsolescence. Just like how cars today are more fuel efficient and safer, older cars have either been destroyed, or their worth has increased and owners hold on to them. Why would law abiding citizens want to register their existing guns? Proof of ownership, the ability to easily report and claim stolen property.

 

[BoberFett]

Lol, no shithead, you hate Democrats using Republican tactics. That's why you never complain when it's the Republicans doing it. You are the kid that cheats on a test and then tells on the guy next to you who is cheating too, you are a hypocrite.

Cry more.

 

[ivwshane]

Cry more.

I only see one poster here who constantly interrupts threads to post how Democrats are using unfair tactics.

Sounds like you are the one crying.

You sad bro?

 

[bozack]

'We should not subject gun sales to this regulation because we don't subject the sales of other things to this regulation' is a terrible argument.

What I am saying is that this is a first given that there is no precedent and suggesting it is "easy" is juvenile, ignorant, and possibly dangerous.

Meh, I'm open to suggestions as to how harsh they should be. Maybe a few months in jail.

You're advocating for it thus its up to you to tell me...

Well there you go, you answered your own question! I doubt many people would want to chance jail time, large fines, or a criminal record rather than drive over to the FFL.

Again you fail to address the question....given that the ATF does not track gun sales past the retail dealers how do you suggest this gets enforced, and if it isn't followed how do they even know who sold the gun without processing the background check?

You're approach only works in states which require gun registration and again that is only limited in what is on record.

So what? This isn't anything like not paying sales taxes.

Why is it any different other than that one deals with folks not paying their fair share and the other is selling a firearm....in both cases you're leaving it up to people to do the "right thing" with virtually no consequences or ability to impose said consequences.

And by 'further complicating' you mean 'adding very little extra complexity'. You might think that selling deadly weapons should be as easy as having a yard sale, but I disagree. As for 'hoping' that they do so, I'm not 'hoping' that they follow the law any more than I hope people follow any other law. If they don't follow it then they may pay the price in the future. Some people might say 'I'll risk a few months in jail rather than drive over to the FFL', but plenty of people won't.

I absolutely love it how people completely ignorant of how things work can so quickly say things like this

You have absolutely no idea how complex the process may or may not be since it has never been done before.

I've addressed them all actually, it's neither a logistical nightmare or an implementation one. I think you don't like the answers you're getting but that's your issue not mine.

You haven't addressed a single one.

I'm serious, I've been genuinely surprised at just how incredibly small the issues you've identified are. They basically boil down to the exact same issues that any law faces and a complaint that people might have to spend an extra 20 minutes selling a gun. Those register about as close to zero on my give a shit scale as it's possible to register.

Again see above, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you're advocating for something that you don't understand nor care to understand.

You come from a place where you are convinced that universal background checks are a bad idea and now you're grasping for ideas to convince yourself why. It should work the other way.

I am not saying they are a bad idea, you're inferring that, what I am saying is what is the point if they add absolutely no value ...as for your grasping for straws I'd suggest you take a peek in the mirror as you have yet to provide one argument in favor of them without also referencing a national database and or making the process more difficult for those who actually will follow the process

So now you're saying we shouldn't do background checks because people who fail them might become enraged and (presumably) attack someone, destroy property, etc.

I have to say that sounds like a really good reason in SUPPORT of background checks, haha. Thanks for the help!

So you're saying someone getting possibly attacked as a result of having to deny someone a purchase is a good reason implement a process?

I am not saying we shouldnt do them because of this, just highlighting that you're now advocating for putting people in the position of breaking the news to folks that they failed a federal background check and should individuals be put in this position. I am sure you will say yes since it furthers your agenda

 

[ivwshane]

What I am saying is that this is a first given that there is no precedent and suggesting it is "easy" is juvenile, ignorant, and possibly dangerous.



You're advocating for it thus its up to you to tell me...



Again you fail to address the question....given that the ATF does not track gun sales past the retail dealers how do you suggest this gets enforced, and if it isn't followed how do they even know who sold the gun without processing the background check?

You're approach only works in states which require gun registration and again that is only limited in what is on record.



Why is it any different other than that one deals with folks not paying their fair share and the other is selling a firearm....in both cases you're leaving it up to people to do the "right thing" with virtually no consequences or ability to impose said consequences.



I absolutely love it how people completely ignorant of how things work can so quickly say things like this

You have absolutely no idea how complex the process may or may not be since it has never been done before.



You haven't addressed a single one.



Again see above, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you're advocating for something that you don't understand nor care to understand.



I am not saying they are a bad idea, you're inferring that, what I am saying is what is the point if they add absolutely no value ...as for your grasping for straws I'd suggest you take a peek in the mirror as you have yet to provide one argument in favor of them without also referencing a national database and or making the process more difficult for those who actually will follow the process



So you're saying someone getting possibly attacked as a result of having to deny someone a purchase is a good reason implement a process?

I am not saying we shouldnt do them because of this, just highlighting that you're now advocating for putting people in the position of breaking the news to folks that they failed a federal background check and should individuals be put in this position. I am sure you will say yes since it furthers your agenda

When you finance our campaigns or donate to us we will be sure to get you the details you need. Until then you can use your imagination like we did to figure out complex problems. Or you can come up with your own solutions, at which point we can hammer you on the minutia like you have and if you provide adequate answers we will be more than happy to contribute to your campaign.

Until then, your concerned trolling is noted

 

[chucky2]

I'm ignoring most of your blather because my other posts have already covered it.

I'm not surprised you want to ignore it, since it basically shows that the "Common Sense" (that is, the 'get as many mm's toward that mile we can whenever we can!') firearm laws aren't going to do that much at all for the problems the Gun Grabbers are so up in arms about. Perhaps Nick can Nick some more on this? Nick?

But I'll address this one issue: I don't think current guns should be required to be retrofitted. Not only is that a huge burden on gun owners and would undoubtedly affect the value of the gun, it's implementation would be extremely costly to implement and enforce by the government and as you mentioned it could easily be undone.

No, you completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about current firearms, I was talking about your 'smart' firearm idea. I'm thinking you're wanting the firearm to only fire if the persons fingerprint/dna/wristband matches what is programmed into the firearm, correct? And what I'm telling you is, since firearms are made to be disassembled to be cleaned/lubed, the 'smart' features in that firearm are going to be made available to whoever breaks the firearm down. Since they are made available, they are able to be replaced with non-'smart' parts if those non-'smart' parts are available on the market. So say your Glock Gen6 G19 has the new 'smart' trigger in it, the one that instantaneously, through grime, mud, snow, gloves, extreme cold/heat, whatever, is able to read somehow the person holding it ID and allow that person to fire the pistol. I get that Gen6 G19 and field strip it in about 10 seconds (that is conservative, and not an exaggeration). I then use my 3/16th punch and break the lower down and out comes the 'smart' trigger. I take my non-'smart' trigger, put it into your Gen6 G19, reassemble, and shazzam!, I've got a firearm that isn't 'smart' at all. Now for me, law abiding citizen, short of just wanting a different non-OE trigger because <insert valid reason>, that would be pointless. But for psycho who is plotting his shooting rampage, or the gangbanger that just bought his 'from the trunk' pistol, it means I'm going to be able to shoot that mofo now, no problem. So you see what it's going to take to prevent this for all newly sold firearms, right? It's going to take a date set by the Fed Gov for all new firearms entering the US that each and every one has a 'smart' feature to meet your legislation. And, because firearms designs are based on their predecessors almost always, it's going to take a requirement that these new 'smart' firearms have to be designed to not accept non-'smart' whatevers, else people could just easily retrofit out the BS 'smart' feature(s). And, it's going to take a requirement that no parts are to be allowed in the US that will enable a defeat/nullification of the 'smart' feature. And, because of that, it's going to take the Fed Gov monitoring shit like a boss because you know for a fact there are going to be (out of tens of millions of people), thousands upon thousands who will absolutely want to do so. That covers just the new firearms being sold after that date.

So what would be the point? Forced obsolescence. Just like how cars today are more fuel efficient and safer, older cars have either been destroyed, or their worth has increased and owners hold on to them.

So when my non-'smart' firearm needs a new <whatever>, you're saying what here exactly? That the Fed Gov won't allow it into the US, and thus I can't have it, rendering my non-'smart' firearm useless?

Why would law abiding citizens want to register their existing guns? Proof of ownership, the ability to easily report and claim stolen property.

Because I don't trust the Gov at all? I have a bill of sale, perhaps pictures of my firearm, which should be all I need when going to insurance co. I don't register my refrigerator with the Gov, but when my kitchen burns down, damn sure my insurance co is adding that to the replacement cost of the kitchen.

 

[ivwshane]

Just because you can't imagine the technology existing doesn't mean it can't or won't exist in the future, which is exactly why I said I'd support the government helping to make that technology a reality. It's also, when asked if the technology was available now, I said no.

I'm not surprised you want to ignore it, since it basically shows that the "Common Sense" (that is, the 'get as many mm's toward that mile we can whenever we can!') firearm laws aren't going to do that much at all for the problems the Gun Grabbers are so up in arms about. Perhaps Nick can Nick some more on this? Nick?



No, you completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about current firearms, I was talking about your 'smart' firearm idea. I'm thinking you're wanting the firearm to only fire if the persons fingerprint/dna/wristband matches what is programmed into the firearm, correct? And what I'm telling you is, since firearms are made to be disassembled to be cleaned/lubed, the 'smart' features in that firearm are going to be made available to whoever breaks the firearm down. Since they are made available, they are able to be replaced with non-'smart' parts if those non-'smart' parts are available on the market. So say your Glock Gen6 G19 has the new 'smart' trigger in it, the one that instantaneously, through grime, mud, snow, gloves, extreme cold/heat, whatever, is able to read somehow the person holding it ID and allow that person to fire the pistol. I get that Gen6 G19 and field strip it in about 10 seconds (that is conservative, and not an exaggeration). I then use my 3/16th punch and break the lower down and out comes the 'smart' trigger. I take my non-'smart' trigger, put it into your Gen6 G19, reassemble, and shazzam!, I've got a firearm that isn't 'smart' at all. Now for me, law abiding citizen, short of just wanting a different non-OE trigger because <insert valid reason>, that would be pointless. But for psycho who is plotting his shooting rampage, or the gangbanger that just bought his 'from the trunk' pistol, it means I'm going to be able to shoot that mofo now, no problem. So you see what it's going to take to prevent this for all newly sold firearms, right? It's going to take a date set by the Fed Gov for all new firearms entering the US that each and every one has a 'smart' feature to meet your legislation. And, because firearms designs are based on their predecessors almost always, it's going to take a requirement that these new 'smart' firearms have to be designed to not accept non-'smart' whatevers, else people could just easily retrofit out the BS 'smart' feature(s). And, it's going to take a requirement that no parts are to be allowed in the US that will enable a defeat/nullification of the 'smart' feature. And, because of that, it's going to take the Fed Gov monitoring shit like a boss because you know for a fact there are going to be (out of tens of millions of people), thousands upon thousands who will absolutely want to do so. That covers just the new firearms being sold after that date.



So when my non-'smart' firearm needs a new <whatever>, you're saying what here exactly? That the Fed Gov won't allow it into the US, and thus I can't have it, rendering my non-'smart' firearm useless?



Because I don't trust the Gov at all? I have a bill of sale, perhaps pictures of my firearm, which should be all I need when going to insurance co. I don't register my refrigerator with the Gov, but when my kitchen burns down, damn sure my insurance co is adding that to the replacement cost of the kitchen.

 

[chucky2]

Just because you can't imagine the technology existing doesn't mean it can't or won't exist in the future, which is exactly why I said I'd support the government helping to make that technology a reality. It's also, when asked if the technology was available now, I said no.

Oh, I'm sure it exists now. I'm sure new 'smart' designs will come out in the future. Where the rubber meets the road is how those 'smart' parts are going to function and be implemented, and thus be accessible. If they are accessible like parts on a firearm are now, then I'm sorry to say, they'll be easily defeatable either by non-'smart' replacement parts and/or by simply someone finding out how to "break" the 'smart' functions but still allow the firearm to reliably fire. I'm sure they could make a sealed firearm, but I'd be very interested in which manufacturer(s) would take that on, as basically they'd be making a firearm for life that didn't need to be cleaned or lubed - and when a manufacturers reputation is based on reliability, that's going to be a large engineering challenge I'd imagine.

Your idea does have merit to be sure for #1 for minors and #4 (where the firearm is stolen), but I'm just saying, it is going to be exceedingly hard to pull off to combat the number of deaths in those cases. It's adding a lot of complexity and risk (due to malfunction during legitimate use) for some <x> amount of benefit. I get that for Gun Grabbers, literally anything is on the table (because they really DGAF if it makes the firearm less nice to own/use, they don't want it to exist in the first place), but if you're talking about legislation, it shouldn't be driven by idiots (aka Gun Grabbers, Politicians), but rather by people that have both feet firmly planted in Realityland. These ideas and implementations should be rooted in some kind of actual common sense basis, not the "Common Sense" basis.

EDIT: Btw, you didn't answer my questions:

So what would be the point? Forced obsolescence. Just like how cars today are more fuel efficient and safer, older cars have either been destroyed, or their worth has increased and owners hold on to them.

So when my non-'smart' firearm needs a new <whatever>, you're saying what here exactly? That the Fed Gov won't allow it into the US, and thus I can't have it, rendering my non-'smart' firearm useless?

 

[ivwshane]

Oh, I'm sure it exists now. I'm sure new 'smart' designs will come out in the future. Where the rubber meets the road is how those 'smart' parts are going to function and be implemented, and thus be accessible. If they are accessible like parts on a firearm are now, then I'm sorry to say, they'll be easily defeatable either by non-'smart' replacement parts and/or by simply someone finding out how to "break" the 'smart' functions but still allow the firearm to reliably fire. I'm sure they could make a sealed firearm, but I'd be very interested in which manufacturer(s) would take that on, as basically they'd be making a firearm for life that didn't need to be cleaned or lubed - and when a manufacturers reputation is based on reliability, that's going to be a large engineering challenge I'd imagine.

Your idea does have merit to be sure for #1 for minors and #4 (where the firearm is stolen), but I'm just saying, it is going to be exceedingly hard to pull off to combat the number of deaths in those cases. It's adding a lot of complexity and risk (due to malfunction during legitimate use) for some <x> amount of benefit. I get that for Gun Grabbers, literally anything is on the table (because they really DGAF if it makes the firearm less nice to own/use, they don't want it to exist in the first place), but if you're talking about legislation, it shouldn't be driven by idiots (aka Gun Grabbers, Politicians), but rather by people that have both feet firmly planted in Realityland. These ideas and implementations should be rooted in some kind of actual common sense basis, not the "Common Sense" basis.

EDIT: Btw, you didn't answer my questions:



So when my non-'smart' firearm needs a new <whatever>, you're saying what here exactly? That the Fed Gov won't allow it into the US, and thus I can't have it, rendering my non-'smart' firearm useless?

I'm sure they could require new parts to be registered along with the gun.

If you are truly interested in solving the issue of gun violence and you think this proposal, that I put very little thought into, could be a workable solution then perhaps you could answer your own questions and come up with suitable solutions. As it stands now, any gun legislation is unlikely to affect me in any way. I have nothing to gain either way. My only concern is whether or not any laws proposed or enacted will work to achieve their desired effect and do their due diligence to adhere to the rights granted to us by the constitution.

 

[chucky2]

I'm sure they could require new parts to be registered along with the gun.

What is this in response to, my questions about replacement parts for existing non-'smart' firearms? Or are you saying new 'smart' parts would be registered to the newer 'smart' firearms?

If you are truly interested in solving the issue of gun violence and you think this proposal, that I put very little thought into, could be a workable solution then perhaps you could answer your own questions and come up with suitable solutions. As it stands now, any gun legislation is unlikely to affect me in any way. I have nothing to gain either way. My only concern is whether or not any laws proposed or enacted will work to achieve their desired effect and do their due diligence to adhere to the rights granted to us by the constitution.

Well, that's the problem really, I don't see these 'smart' firearms really solving/deterring any gun deaths to the degree needed to make everyone and their mother use the new 'smart' firearms. If someone came out with a design that was reliable in all conditions a firearm of that type was to be used in, at most somewhat unobtrusive (for an actual user, not determined by Gun Grabbers), and could actually plausibly have a real reduction in deaths we want to reduce (again, I don't GAF about criminals or adults wanting to off just themselves dying), then I'd genuinely be interested in it. The technology and designs would have to be proved out first however, then once they are shown to actually reliably work, legislation could follow...not the other way around.

 

[ivwshane]

What is this in response to, my questions about replacement parts for existing non-'smart' firearms? Or are you saying new 'smart' parts would be registered to the newer 'smart' firearms?



Well, that's the problem really, I don't see these 'smart' firearms really solving/deterring any gun deaths to the degree needed to make everyone and their mother use the new 'smart' firearms. If someone came out with a design that was reliable in all conditions a firearm of that type was to be used in, at most somewhat unobtrusive (for an actual user, not determined by Gun Grabbers), and could actually plausibly have a real reduction in deaths we want to reduce (again, I don't GAF about criminals or adults wanting to off just themselves dying), then I'd genuinely be interested in it. The technology and designs would have to be proved out first however, then once they are shown to actually reliably work, legislation could follow...not the other way around.

Absolutely! I don't think I've said otherwise or have implied otherwise.

 

[michal1980]

I'm sure they could require new parts to be registered along with the gun.

If you are truly interested in solving the issue of gun violence and you think this proposal, that I put very little thought into, could be a workable solution then perhaps you could answer your own questions and come up with suitable solutions. As it stands now, any gun legislation is unlikely to affect me in any way. I have nothing to gain either way. My only concern is whether or not any laws proposed or enacted will work to achieve their desired effect and do their due diligence to adhere to the rights granted to us by the constitution.

Register your guns or we take your guns, update your guns or we take your guns.


And yet you claim your not out to take guns away from people?


Your the reason the NRA has to be the way it is.

Mod edit:
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/18/news/mn-1290
Michal1980 provided evidence for his post. -Admin DrPizza

 

[ctark]

Restricting one right should be good for all rights.

Background check on gun purchase:

Background check on voting?
Background check before going to church?
Maybe a permit to buy a bible, torah or quran?
Want to carry a bible to church, you will need a permit.
Want to talk about political candidates, you will need a background check and permit.
Want to post something in a online forum about politics, you will need a background check, permit, and waiting period.

www.logic101.com

Go learn, then come back and debate in an intellectually honest way.

 

[Lash444]

www.logic101.com

Go learn, then come back and debate in an intellectually honest way.

Its too bad they don't have a logic test before being able to post in ATPN.

 

[MagickMan]

The NRA is a ridiculous organization.

No more ridiculous than a labor union.

 

[glenn1]

I'm sure they could require new parts to be registered along with the gun.

If you are truly interested in solving the issue of gun violence and you think this proposal, that I put very little thought into, could be a workable solution then perhaps you could answer your own questions and come up with suitable solutions. As it stands now, any gun legislation is unlikely to affect me in any way. I have nothing to gain either way. My only concern is whether or not any laws proposed or enacted will work to achieve their desired effect and do their due diligence to adhere to the rights granted to us by the constitution.

While I understand and can appreciate your concerns, I don't think this technology would be extremely helpful in your use case of a stolen firearm. Just like with security for networks or devices, if the 'hacker' has physical access it's hard to prevent them from breaching any countermeasures. It might deter a thief momentarily just as the "lock" on a desk drawer might, but ultimately it's more of a nuisance than true security. A firearm just isn't large enough to have mechanisms (whether mechanical, electrical, or other) that are robust enough to withstand much tampering. For example, if you place your security device such that is disables the trigger sear without the smart device, this is how much space you have to work with, and that's not going to withstand much effort against someone with even crude tools. So long as you understand that the "locking mechanism" is probably going to not be much more robust than the second picture which isn't a lot of security, then your expectation may be appropriate.

 

[bozack]

When you finance our campaigns or donate to us we will be sure to get you the details you need. Until then you can use your imagination like we did to figure out complex problems. Or you can come up with your own solutions, at which point we can hammer you on the minutia like you have and if you provide adequate answers we will be more than happy to contribute to your campaign.

Until then, your concerned trolling is noted

You figured nothing out though, all you did was say this is what you want to see and give some vague suggestions if that, no complex problems were solved nor even addressed.

As I said before, you and eskimo appear to be the biggest proponents of this and as such its your responsibility to explain how you think this would work out and be worth the cost of implementation, something neither of you seem to be able to do.

 

[fskimospy]

You figured nothing out though, all you did was say this is what you want to see and give some vague suggestions if that, no complex problems were solved nor even addressed.

As I said before, you and eskimo appear to be the biggest proponents of this and as such its your responsibility to explain how you think this would work out and be worth the cost of implementation, something neither of you seem to be able to do.

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.

 

[chucky2]

There's that "Common Sense" again lulz... :wub:

 

[DrPizza]

Here's an idea:

Instead of a background check being done while someone is attempting to purchase a gun, how about if those wanting to buy a gun went to some place, maybe a 2nd service the DMV would offer or something, and get a permit to purchase guns there following a background check there. Then, if they wanted to purchase a gun from a private seller, they'd simply need to show the "I'm okay to sell a gun to" permit. Toss on a 3 year expiration date or something.

Thus, there'd be no worries about guns being tracked (potentially to take away the guns in the future, per Michal1980's link). No inconvenience of having to go to an FFL (and paying an FFL) to transfer a gun. No issue of "sorry, Dude, I hate to tell you, but you just failed the background check."


At that point, simply have undercover people occasionally attempting to purchase guns without having an "I'm okay" card. And, nail the sellers to the wall. More or less the way many convenience stores are afraid to sell beer to people without I.D. Fines/penalties could even be similar. Say, maybe a $1000 fine for selling to someone who didn't have an "I'm okay" card, for a 1st offense.

Eskimospy said earlier, "And by 'further complicating' you mean 'adding very little extra complexity'. You might think that selling deadly weapons should be as easy as having a yard sale, but I disagree." You're incredibly naive if you think spending as much as 10% of a guns value, traveling to an FFL, and waiting an extra half hour to make a transfer is "very little extra complexity."

 

[Kwatt]

Here's an idea:

Instead of a background check being done while someone is attempting to purchase a gun, how about if those wanting to buy a gun went to some place, maybe a 2nd service the DMV would offer or something, and get a permit to purchase guns there following a background check there. Then, if they wanted to purchase a gun from a private seller, they'd simply need to show the "I'm okay to sell a gun to" permit. Toss on a 3 year expiration date or something.

That is an option here now.

.

 

[ivwshane]

Register your guns or we take your guns, update your guns or we take your guns.


And yet you claim your not out to take guns away from people?


Your the reason the NRA has to be the way it is.

Mod edit:
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/18/news/mn-1290
Michal1980 provided evidence for his post. -Admin DrPizza

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

We are accepting the court's judgment that the statute clearly prohibits the registration of banned assault weapons after the March 1992 deadline," Brankin said

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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Here's an idea:

Instead of a background check being done while someone is attempting to purchase a gun, how about if those wanting to buy a gun went to some place, maybe a 2nd service the DMV would offer or something, and get a permit to purchase guns there following a background check there. Then, if they wanted to purchase a gun from a private seller, they'd simply need to show the "I'm okay to sell a gun to" permit. Toss on a 3 year expiration date or something.

I like the concept on the surface. The devil is in the details.

 

[interchange]

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?

 

[ivwshane]

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?

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.