MSNBC Gun Poll blows up in their face

[CF DolFan]

As an immigrant, that about encapsulates the american obsession with guns right there.

Glad you get it then because that's why our forefathers put it in there in the first place. We value our freedom because we know how easy it is to lose it and how hard it was to get in the first place.

I will say it is very similar to God from a Christian's perspective. God allows free will and the freedom to choose. This means bad people get the same freedoms as non bad people. You can follow God's will or choose not to. Unfortunately in that freedom there is a negative effect on God's people while here on earth. Bad people take advantage, rob, rape and kill good people all the time because of this freedom. In the same way because we as a country have freedoms to protect ourselves that gives bad people an opportunity to hurt innocents. It the times we live in people are "victims" of someone else making them be bad instead of "accountable".  It's gotten so bad we blame guns instead of the people and the system that caused/allowed it. We need to look into what is causing or allowing these people to do harm and not at trying to punish innocent people for the actions of others.

[Phishfan]

Why do we protect our money in the banks with armed guards?

Is this a real thing,  I have only seen it on tv and movies? Anyone ever see it in practice?

[Spider-Dan]

Because if the police or the government ever become corrupt, citizens can defend themselves and start a new government.   That's what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

No, the founding fathers did not incorporate violent armed rebellion into the Constitution.  Violent armed rebellion is 100% illegal and unconstitutional.  We know this because some traitors in the South who really liked slavery already tried it.

[stinkfish]

 

No, the founding fathers did not incorporate violent armed rebellion into the Constitution.  Violent armed rebellion is 100% illegal and unconstitutional.  We know this because some traitors in the South who really liked slavery already tried it.

[Dave Gray]

Everyday that you go in public  places like the mall or grocery store you are already passing probably hundreds of people carrying concealed weapons. Accidents happen by nature of the word but the fear of people having guns isn't rationale. There are 2 million concealed permit holders in the state of Florida alone. I'd bet there are hundreds of thousands more carrying illegally. Accidents are rare.

I get this.  I really REALLY do.

But though accidents and flip outs and misuse of weapons is extremely rare and not indicitive of the public at large, it does happen.  A certain percentage of the population is going to have accidents, make bad decisions, or flip out.

And increasing the amount of guns is going to increase the amounts of incidents.

That doesn't mean ban everything.  But it does need to be recognized.  And I think it dispels the idea that more guns are safer than fewer guns.  Even though we do have so many people doing the correct thing, gun deaths in this country are way, way, way past other comparable populations.

[pondwater]

If it were up to you and yours, we would stand around all day arguing about what the definition of "assault weapon" (or "clip," or "silencer," or even "ban") is.  That's the only solution you guys ever offer: run out the clock with pedantry about terminology.

So if it makes it easier to end the interminable discussion about "assault weapons" where you show a picture of a Glock with binoculars and a broom handle taped to it and ask, "So is this an assault weapon?  Is it?  Huh?", I propose that we further regulate (not "ban," because I've already went multiple rounds of this time-wasting game arguing about what the word ban means) all semi-automatic firearms.

It matters because the liberals are the one's hooked on the terms assault weapon, weapons of war, clips, silencers, and common sense gun legislation. The media and the left are the ones using fear mongering, scare tactics, and made up terms to further their agenda. So if they're going to use the terms, we have to define what those terms actually mean.

Hell, at least you're being somewhat honest in your approach when you say you want to regulate ALL semi auto firearms. However, you're not being honest about the odds of that happening. I'm trying to discuss the conversation on the national level. You, on the other hand are discussing your own "Pie in the Sky" solution that has ZERO chance of happening. No one is even talking about that except you. They're all talking about coming to get everyone's Ar15s and Ak47s. Either you agree and support what your liberal leaders are proposing or you don't. Otherwise you may need to throw your hat in the ring and run for office and propose your ideas. Let me know how it works out for you.

Chicago is 10 minutes from the state of Indiana, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.  So it matters much less how strict the gun laws in Chicago are, because you can drive a short way to IN and stock up.  This is why we need federal regulations.

We already have federal regulations. What you say is not even close to accurate. You can't just drive to another state and "stock up".

Per ATF regulations: "For a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or
she may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a
NICS background check." https://www.atf.gov/file/3871/download

What other regulations do you suggest?

[Spider-Dan]

Hell, at least you're being somewhat honest in your approach when you say you want to regulate ALL semi auto firearms. However, you're not being honest about the odds of that happening.

I'm sure you know as well as I do that the odds of what can happen are directly influenced by what people discuss (i.e. "the Overton Window").  I mean, how certain are you today that single-payer healthcare will never arrive on the shores of America... as certain as you were 20 years ago?

We already have federal regulations. What you say is not even close to accurate. You can't just drive to another state and "stock up".

I'm sure you also know that background check regulations apply to sales from FFL dealers, and that no background check is required at all for a transaction between private parties (e.g. at a gun show).   So in practice, IL residents can buy guns in IN, because the IN seller has no legal requirement to check the state of residence of the buyer.

[pondwater]

I'm sure you know as well as I do that the odds of what can happen are directly influenced by what people discuss (i.e. "the Overton Window").  I mean, how certain are you today that single-payer healthcare will never arrive on the shores of America... as certain as you were 20 years ago?

Two problems with that. No one that matters is seriously discussing banning/regulating ALL semi auto firearms. Anyone who does will never be elected. There are too many already in circulation. What you are proposing would lead to a civil war with many more deaths than you say you're trying to prevent. Also, we don't currently have single payer health care and it seems like we won't have it for the foreseeable future.

I'm sure you also know that background check regulations apply to sales from FFL dealers, and that no background check is required at all for a transaction between private parties (e.g. at a gun show).   So in practice, IL residents can buy guns in IN, because the IN seller has no legal requirement to check the state of residence of the buyer.

Again, read the ATF regulations. Firearms transferred across state lines must be transferred through a FFL holder before a purchaser/friend could take possession. Per ATF website question number 2, https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/0501-firearms-top-10-qaspdf/download

2. May I lawfully transfer a firearm to a friend who resides in a different State? (A friend would be no different from a purchaser from another state.)

Under Federal law, an unlicensed individual is prohibited from transferring a firearm to an individual
who does not reside in the State where the transferee resides. Generally, for a person to lawfully
transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a
Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) within the recipient’s State of residence. He or she may then
receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background
check.


So are you saying that the regulation that you propose to fix the problem is to do background checks on private party interstate firearm transfers even though there is already a regulation in place that requires a background check?

[Fau Teixeira]

Because if the police or the government ever become corrupt, citizens can defend themselves and start a new government.   That's what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

100% completely without a shadow of a doubt wrong.. you could not be more wrong in your statement. That is not what they had in mind, in fact the concept of individual gun ownership right doesn't even come about until after the civil war.

[Fau Teixeira]

Glad you get it then because that's why our forefathers put it in there in the first place. We value our freedom because we know how easy it is to lose it and how hard it was to get in the first place.

I will say it is very similar to God from a Christian's perspective. God allows free will and the freedom to choose. This means bad people get the same freedoms as non bad people. You can follow God's will or choose not to. Unfortunately in that freedom there is a negative effect on God's people while here on earth. Bad people take advantage, rob, rape and kill good people all the time because of this freedom. In the same way because we as a country have freedoms to protect ourselves that gives bad people an opportunity to hurt innocents. It the times we live in people are "victims" of someone else making them be bad instead of "accountable".  It's gotten so bad we blame guns instead of the people and the system that caused/allowed it. We need to look into what is causing or allowing these people to do harm and not at trying to punish innocent people for the actions of others.

So I won't get into the god argument with you. Lets just say that your beliefs are inconsistent with your scripture and I don't give any weight to that philosophy to begin with.
I actually agree with the 2nd part of your argument. We can't blame guns, they are inanimate objects. Just like we can't blame ebola for killing people it isn't doing anything wrong in just existing. We can however quarantine people that have ebola to prevent them from infecting a bunch of other people. We can pass legislation that says you can't fly into JFK if you have ebola. So from that sense, I don't blame guns. I do blame gun manufacturers, gun lobbyists and gun owners that manufacture or acquire guns and then allow them to be used in mass shootings.

To that effect, i would propose that every gun sale is registered, and that if a gun is used in a crime, in addition to the person committing the crime being responsible, the person that originally bought the gun also be criminally responsible for the crime due to negligence. You sold your gun under the table and someone shot someone .. you go to jail. You got your guns stolen from home and that gun gets used to murder kindergartners then you go to jail as well. You shoulda kept it in a safe. If your kid gets a hold of your gun and shoots someone .. you go to jail .. you shoulda kept it in a safe.  I agree with you CF .. lets have some personal responsibility and accountability about guns.

[pondwater]

To that effect, i would propose that every gun sale is registered, and that if a gun is used in a crime, in addition to the person committing the crime being responsible, the person that originally bought the gun also be criminally responsible for the crime due to negligence. You sold your gun under the table and someone shot someone .. you go to jail. You got your guns stolen from home and that gun gets used to murder kindergartners then you go to jail as well. You shoulda kept it in a safe. If your kid gets a hold of your gun and shoots someone .. you go to jail .. you shoulda kept it in a safe.  I agree with you CF .. lets have some personal responsibility and accountability about guns.

Your car got stolen and was involved in a fiery school bus crash which killed 30 children and the bus driver. YOU GO TO JAIL. Your gas grill got stolen and the thief used it to host a Super Bowl party for 50 retarded invalid children. The grill blows up and they all die. YOU GO TO JAIL. The weird kid on Ritalin down the street who rarely leaves the house steals your "As Seen on TV" Ginsu steak knives and proceeds to go to a daycare center and stabs 25 toddlers to death. YOU GO TO JAIL.

The problem with your argument is that any inanimate object can kill people. An AR15 is no more dangerous than a steak knife or an automobile. They all take a deliberate conscience actions to kill someone, whether by mistake or not.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ I have to wonder... When you go back and read your own words, do you ever think "Maybe no one will notice how ridiculous my words actually are?"

[pondwater]

^^^ I have to wonder... When you go back and read your own words, do you ever think "Maybe no one will notice how ridiculous my words actually are?"

Please elaborate...

[CF DolFan]

^^^ I have to wonder... When you go back and read your own words, do you ever think "Maybe no one will notice how ridiculous my words actually are?"

His examples are right on. the problem with gun control people is they want to apply rules to "guns" that they do not apply to anything else. The sad part is many other things cause much more damage than guns but they don't appeal to the emotions.

[Phishfan]

100% completely without a shadow of a doubt wrong.. you could not be more wrong in your statement. That is not what they had in mind, in fact the concept of individual gun ownership right doesn't even come about until after the civil war.

You have no clue what concepts came up or when.