• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guns

What do you think gun control should be like?

  • Let everyone have a gun

    Votes: 19 22.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase and carry

    Votes: 25 29.4%
  • Quick background check to purchase, but more difficult to carry

    Votes: 11 12.9%
  • Background check, waiting period for purchase and carrying.

    Votes: 17 20.0%
  • Background check, waiting period, no carrying

    Votes: 5 5.9%
  • No guns at all

    Votes: 8 9.4%

  • Total voters
    85
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, those are polls. I am aware that over the past thirty years the percentage of those polled has changed. I do not take issue with that.

What I am asking you is when the VOTERS decided this issue as you claimed.

There is a difference with a distinction. The point is that the American people have never voted on this issue - nor will they since we are not a direct democracy.


If it were popular among voters, politicians would openly support it. Notice that hardly any do.
 
I haven't read past the first page and I'm sure this has boiled down to "guns bad", "no, guns good" arguments... but I'm going to give my opinion anyway, because I'm pushy like that. :mrgreen:

I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit.

However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.

After that, I believe that all weapons up to heavy artillary should be legal to own for someone who has been properly vetted and licensed.

So, having pissed off both sides with my views, I salute and say, "Carry on, folks!" :lol:
 
:
I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit. l:

The idea of a waiting period is not for those who pass a background check. The waiting period is some lame ass flopped idea that people get angry and go buy a gun and shoot someone. Of course this is unrealistic. The "cooling period" idea has been statistically shown to be irrelevant with 0 effects. Background checks are instant.

I will say that I agree that you should have to wait until your background check is completed (and your fingerprints are confirmed on file with the FBI for concealed carry), but once that is done...if you get a concealed permit you shouldn't have to have a waiting period (and you don't in most states to my knowledge with a concealed license) and you shouldn't have the waiting period if you pass the background check.

However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.

I am starting to come around to the idea of gun shows having to abide by gun dealer regulations. The reason is because it is a mass event, and it is essentially a firearms store. Not to mention many of the errors in gun sales occur here...instead of at stores where background checks etc are easy.

I still agree with private sale. It is MY firearm. I should be allowed to sell it without an FFLD. Not to mention the sale of private arms by criminals will not be affected by a law like this. The very nature of their sale is already illegitmate.
 
I haven't read past the first page and I'm sure this has boiled down to "guns bad", "no, guns good" arguments... but I'm going to give my opinion anyway, because I'm pushy like that. :mrgreen:

I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit.

However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.

After that, I believe that all weapons up to heavy artillary should be legal to own for someone who has been properly vetted and licensed.

So, having pissed off both sides with my views, I salute and say, "Carry on, folks!" :lol:
Not pissed at all Di. I have no problem with background checks as long as the records are kept by the dealer and subject only to a subpoena if a crime is suspected using the model sold. The "loophole" isn't really a loophole at all, gun shows are attended by FFL and independent sellers and subject to the same laws pertaining to both, a FFL dealer at a show still must follow all protocol of filling out the federal check form and making the call to the ATF but those selling privately owned arms don't have to do that whether they sell from their home, in the mall parking lot, or at a gun show. Either sale is not legitimate if they feel that the person buying is doing so with the intent to commit a crime.
 
The idea of a waiting period is not for those who pass a background check. The waiting period is some lame ass flopped idea that people get angry and go buy a gun and shoot someone. Of course this is unrealistic. The "cooling period" idea has been statistically shown to be irrelevant with 0 effects. Background checks are instant.

I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness.

I will say that I agree that you should have to wait until your background check is completed (and your fingerprints are confirmed on file with the FBI for concealed carry), but once that is done...if you get a concealed permit you shouldn't have to have a waiting period (and you don't in most states to my knowledge with a concealed license) and you shouldn't have the waiting period if you pass the background check.

My feeling is that if a FULL background check is done at purchase, even if it takes a few days, then that gun belongs to that person and he/she should automatically be allowed to carry either open or concealed.

I am starting to come around to the idea of gun shows having to abide by gun dealer regulations. The reason is because it is a mass event, and it is essentially a firearms store. Not to mention many of the errors in gun sales occur here...instead of at stores where background checks etc are easy.

I agree with this.

I still agree with private sale. It is MY firearm. I should be allowed to sell it without an FFLD. Not to mention the sale of private arms by criminals will not be affected by a law like this. The very nature of their sale is already illegitmate.

Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool. They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.

You know when storage bins are auctioned off, any firearms found there must be taken to a licensed gun dealer (the auctioneer will do it himself if he sees the weapon) to be registered to the person who bought the bin... same background checks apply. I think that's good. The idea is to track guns, like cars, from owner to owner via serial number. You have to notify the DMV if your automobile is sold or stolen, and when you purchase a car, even a used one. I think guns should be handled the same way.
 
Last edited:
I understood that the background checks took time, and had to be done by a law enforcement agency to check for felony convictions, etc. Gun dealers wouldn't have access to those files. If I'm wrong, then I'm fine without the waiting period. I just want a FULL background check, including those with mental illness.
State dependent. My purchase took about 30 minutes, it's usually around 20-45 depending on how quickly you can accurately fill out the paperwork and how quickly the ATF can be contacted. Usually it takes longer on weekends as a lot of people are purchasing during off days and the phones get a little backed up. Waiting periods are typically state specific, they basically say the gun is yours but you can't have it until they say so, tends to be between 1-3 weeks. Louisiana doesn't have a waiting period so my property was in had as soon as the ATF issued the ok. New York I think is seven days, Cali takes IIRC two weeks.



My feeling is that if a FULL background check is done at purchase, even if it takes a few days, then that gun belongs to that person and he/she should automatically be allowed to carry either open or concealed.
I don't have a problem with a CCW requirement because any idiot can hide a gun, those who do so legally won't take that priviledge lightly and tend to have less gun charges than any catagory. The reason I don't mind CCW is that if a person is concealing with no license and stopped for another crime this gets someone off the street that may have used that weapon in a violent act. It's one of the small percentage of gun laws I actually think is workable and reasonable.





Let me tell you why I feel that they should go through licensed dealers. We need to be able to track a gun through several owners, so if it ends up back at the scene of a crime, law enforcement has a tool.
If a private sale is done correctly with a notary or witness and the numbers are put on a receipt it would still be pretty easy to track provided there is no tampering. If I sold my arms privately I would personally cover all bases just in case, don't really need a dealer for that. Basically if I were questioned I would show the notarized receipt with purchaser, serial #, and an emphatic "not me".
They should also have to be reported as stolen... law, not optional... and when a licensed gun dealer conducts the private sale, he would have the information available to make certain the gun has not been stolen and the registered owner is indeed the person who legitimately bought the gun.
Here's the thing I don't like about a mandatory report, some people may not realize their guns are stolen until it becomes a questioning issue, there was a movement to force reporting within 24 hours of theft but that leads to further issues such as "How am I supposed to know my weapon was stolen exactly 24 hours ago or less?", "What if it's stolen while I'm away and I can't find out during the window?", "Even though it's a good idea to report a stolen weapon, I don't like ultimatums" things like that.

I will say that I would report if my gun was stolen for my own self-preservation, my biggest concern is to have my weapon used in a crime and having to answer police questions about it and I would hate for someone to misuse my weapon to injure an innocent(but I take responsibility for my property). FFL dealers to my knowledge are not allowed to conduct a private sale, even their own guns. One other thing, many stolen arms tend to become "filed guns" that is the serial numbers are removed to prevent tracing them back to a crime, which is a second and very serious federal charge.
 
Last edited:
Years ago, one could support gun owners rights and still lobby for legislation on the subject. That is no longer possible in this current political environment which has taken a hard right turn. For some - and I say some and not all or even a majority - the First Amendment has supplanted the Second Amendment regarding gun rights in that their devotion and love of firearms is far closer to a religious like fervor based on willful belief than anything else. And right from little many are taught it is dangerous and nonproductive to mess with peoples religious beliefs.

Once upon a time, when we had mass killings in which firearms were involved, rational people discussed it and ideas for legislation were introduced and debated. We just saw three young people slaughtered in Chardon, Ohio and instead of spurring national discussion, those who want to do so are charged with using dead children to promote an agenda which is never identified.

There simply is no current environment for rational discussion on this topic.

years ago some people actually bought the lies that those who wanted more gun control were actually trying to stop crime rather than either pretending they were tough on criminals or they wanted to hassle honest gun owners

right now there is so much evidence that anyone who claims that additional restrictions that impact honest gun owners are needed for crime control is easily seen as a liar, dishonest or a complete moron
 
actually yes, there is. or there was.

The Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the various Militia Acts by Congress clearly spell out the framework of The Militia. And The Militia was eventually done away with in 1903, with The Militia Act of 1903, which formalized the National Guard, to take over the responsibilities of the civilian Militia.

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was a federally regulated militia (the one of which you speak), state regulated miltias and citizen regulated militias (like the ones we have around today).
 
If it were popular among voters, politicians would openly support it. Notice that hardly any do.

We could argue that forever without coming to any definitive conclusion. One could argue that the public support for sensible gun measures in previous decades hardly translated into the same level of legislation before public opinion shifted a bit.

My point was a simple one - your statement about the voters deciding this is simply not true.
 
years ago some people actually bought the lies that those who wanted more gun control were actually trying to stop crime rather than either pretending they were tough on criminals or they wanted to hassle honest gun owners

right now there is so much evidence that anyone who claims that additional restrictions that impact honest gun owners are needed for crime control is easily seen as a liar, dishonest or a complete moron

It is talk like that which poisons any true discussion and keeps decent and moderate people away from the extremists who tend to dominate those type of discussions with their all or nothing black or white view of the issue. People quickly learn that arguing with a religious zealot is a dead end street that is very unrewarding.
 
It is talk like that which poisons any true discussion and keeps decent and moderate people away from the extremists who tend to dominate those type of discussions with their all or nothing black or white view of the issue. People quickly learn that arguing with a religious zealot is a dead end street that is very unrewarding.


the religious zealots are the idiots who engage in a faith based idiocy that those who disobey laws against robbery or murder are somehow going to obey gun laws
 
I looked at the sites you listed (one wouldn't come up). Sorry, I'm an engineer so I have a hard time with stuff that is not quantitative. In my one experience with having someone point a loaded gun at me after I caught him doing a property crime to our home, my having a gun would have resulted in a very unfortunate outcome. I probably would have ended up in jail for a long time. I had to talk to him (I was actually looking for an opportunity to kill him with his own gun.) This gave the police time to arrive and catch him pointing the gun at me. There were no police, then, in an instant, he had 3 of them pointing their pistols at him in a very coordinated response to a phone call. He went to jail. I actually met him about 2 years later at the counter of an auto parts store a few years later. He was very contrite.

I give you a study that actually quantifies. You explain that as an engineer you don't like stuff that isn't quantifiable, which you seem to suggest includes said study. Then you argue from a non-quantifiable stance....

you were lucky, frankly, that the guy was not actually willing to kill you. had he been so, then you not being armed would have meant that the police would have arrived far too late for you or (had they been there) potentially your family.
 
I haven't read past the first page and I'm sure this has boiled down to "guns bad", "no, guns good" arguments... but I'm going to give my opinion anyway, because I'm pushy like that. :mrgreen:

I went for the full background check with a waiting period to be sure the person is eligible, then let everyone except felons and mentally ill purchase and carry. I'll go further. I think once a person has legally purchased a weapon, I believe they should be able to carry it either open or concealed without additional permit.

However... and it's a big one to a lot of gun owners... I want the loophole in gun show sales closed. Gun show sales should be subject to the same background check and waiting period as guns purchased in a shop. Individual sales of guns... one person to another... should be illegal. Instead, both people should be required to do the sale through a licensed gun dealer to assure a proper background check and make certain the seller is the registered owner of the gun.

hm - would you accept a vetting service? "hey mr i want to buy your gun" "okedoke, bring me a notarized form that you've been vetted from a licensed vetter no more than 72 hours old and I'll sell it to you."
 
There was a federally regulated militia (the one of which you speak), state regulated miltias and citizen regulated militias (like the ones we have around today).

the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and the various Militia Acts, discuss the only legal Militia that has ever existed in the USA. The "citizen Militias" are nothing more than a bunch of paranoid nuts petting their long, hard weapons.
 
I give you a study that actually quantifies. You explain that as an engineer you don't like stuff that isn't quantifiable, which you seem to suggest includes said study. Then you argue from a non-quantifiable stance....

you were lucky, frankly, that the guy was not actually willing to kill you. had he been so, then you not being armed would have meant that the police would have arrived far too late for you or (had they been there) potentially your family.
I have told people before because of the way I was trained I don't pull if I'm not ready to use, once you see my hand motion it's too late, I've made my decision.
 
so, based on the poll, the majority of folks believe that background checks and other requirements, should be the law.

this is good to know, and gives me faith in our country.
 
the religious zealots are the idiots who engage in a faith based idiocy that those who disobey laws against robbery or murder are somehow going to obey gun laws
You've gotta love liberal logic: "We know you have the right and it's not to be infringed, but we want to talk about infringing a little to make us feel safer, that you don't want to give us the attention we crave means you are "poisoning the well". So let's talk about compromise even though we offer nothing to make up for you giving up your rights, you're the one being unreasonable and crazy".
 
You've gotta love liberal logic: "We know you have the right and it's not to be infringed, but we want to talk about infringing a little to make us feel safer, that you don't want to give us the attention we crave means you are "poisoning the well". So let's talk about compromise even though we offer nothing to make up for you giving up your rights, you're the one being unreasonable and crazy".

No one who understands this subject believes that those who want more gun laws have any motivation other than hassling gun owners
 
No one who understands this subject believes that those who want more gun laws have any motivation other than hassling gun owners

that's a great way to disregard the beliefs of those you disagree with: simply tell yourself again & again, that they just care about hassling honest gun owners, and really don't give a **** about reducing crime and the number of innocent deaths in our country.
 
the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, and the various Militia Acts, discuss the only legal Militia that has ever existed in the USA. The "citizen Militias" are nothing more than a bunch of paranoid nuts petting their long, hard weapons.

not at all - the Founders were quite clear (as I have pointed out) that the militia is considered a "bottom up" organization that flows from the people (the whole people except for a few public officials), not a top-down organization that requires the blessing of government. That would rather defeat one of it's chief purposes.
 
that's a great way to disregard the beliefs of those you disagree with: simply tell yourself again & again, that they just care about hassling honest gun owners, and really don't give a **** about reducing crime and the number of innocent deaths in our country.

we absolutely do care deeply about those things. That is why we want as many law abiding people as possible to be responsibly armed. criminals respond to incentives as much as anyone else - to include the disencentive of a potentially armed not-so-willing victim.
 
Last edited:
not at all - the Founders were quite clear (as I have pointed out) that the militia is considered a "bottom up" organization that flows from the people (the whole people except for a few public officials), not a top-down organization that requires the blessing of government. That would rather defeat one of it's chief purposes.

meanwhile, the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act of 1792 make it very clear that The Militia was a government regulated, disciplined, instructed, and organized group.
 
we absolutely do care deeply about those things. That is why we want as many law abiding people as possible to be responsibly armed.

and WE want to make sure that the only folks who possess guns, are ones who have a legal right to do so.
 
that's a great way to disregard the beliefs of those you disagree with: simply tell yourself again & again, that they just care about hassling honest gun owners, and really don't give a **** about reducing crime and the number of innocent deaths in our country.
It is not about "hassling" gun owners, it is about applying restrictions on people who seek to legally own guns who have that right, according to the second amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS.

If "The" miltia was irrelevant, SCOTUS would have determined so.

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom