• 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!

How do we keep...

Aberration said:
Should be is a matter of opinion. Another reason it’s not a loophole
Click to expand...

the gun ban/gun control movement is based on dishonesty. Its dubious that congress had the proper power to demand a dealer in Ohio conduct a background check when an Ohio citizen buys a gun merely because the gun may have moved in interstate commerce and the license the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT requires the dealer to have to buy guns from wholesalers implicates "intestate commerce" but most of congress did not believe second hand sales between individuals who are Prohibited from selling guns or buying guns INTERSTATE implicated the commerce clause sufficiently to make that power apply.

so there is no loophole. those who claim there is are either too stupid or ignorant to be taken seriously on this subject or are (far more likely) dishonest. after all the GC movement is based on dishonesty
 
vegas giants said:
I have to explain to you how a felon can get out of prison and buy a gun in a private sale the day he gets out?
Click to expand...

I have to explain to you how it’s illegal to sell to a felon?
 
Aberration said:
I have to explain to you how it’s illegal to sell to a felon?
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with how incredibly easy it is? It is illegal for a felon to buy a gun in England......and also very very hard
 
Kal'Stang said:
Keep guns out of the wrong hands.
Click to expand...
I have a multi-pronged answer:

1. Convert the wrong hands into the right hands by improving economic opportunities. Then you can give those same hands a gun all day long and it won't be a problem.

2. Enforcement. Undercover ATF trying to straw-purchase from FFLs, for example. We need more of that.

3. Accept that we can never get rid of all of the wrong hands and so the general public will still need access to firearms.
 
OlNate said:
Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to close up the loopholes in private gun sales.
Click to expand...
Say you did that, how does that stop the sale? How do you perform a background check on people you don't even know are buying a gun?
 
goldkam said:
Not to sure what you are alluding too?
Click to expand...
Most gun crime is suicide.

Second to that, gun crime is gang-related, usually a turf war or a drug deal gone bad.

The rest is made up of domestic arguments and negligent discharges.

So if you aren't suicidal or hanging out with gangs, you probably won't ever need a gun for self-defense.

Unfortunately, we can't say for certainty that you will, in fact, not ever need a gun, and so we need guns available.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Say you did that, how does that stop the sale? How do you perform a background check on people you don't even know are buying a gun?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a complete solution...I don't think there is a complete solution tied to gun control, which is why I generally don't support extreme gun control (I know, crazy to here from a dirty progressive, and a Canadian one at that...haha... I grew up with guns, so I'm not afraid of them in the same way people with no exposure to them are). What it would do is reduce the number of sales to bad people by good people. It would be a reduction, not an elimination, in the number of guns inadvertently getting in the wrong hands...and even there I'm not sure much of a reduction one should expect.

I wasn't overly in love with this suggestion....it was just the only gap I could find.
 
OlNate said:
I don't think it's a complete solution...I don't think there is a complete solution tied to gun control, which is why I generally don't support extreme gun control (I know, crazy to here from a dirty progressive, and a Canadian one at that...haha... I grew up with guns, so I'm not afraid of them in the same way people with no exposure to them are). What it would do is reduce the number of sales to bad people by good people. It would be a reduction, not an elimination, in the number of guns inadvertently getting in the wrong hands...and even there I'm not sure much of a reduction one should expect.

I wasn't overly in love with this suggestion....it was just the only gap I could find.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that good guys selling to bad guys in private sales is a significant factor, and a goal is to reduce that number. Direct access to NICS would be a simpler solution than a UBC.
 
Rucker61 said:
I don't believe that good guys selling to bad guys in private sales is a significant factor, and a goal is to reduce that number. Direct access to NICS would be a simpler solution than a UBC.
Click to expand...

Nah, I didn't say it was. As I originally said, it's about the only hole I can find...didn't say it was a gaping hole. :) Direct access to NICS is also a good initiative...but I see that problematic for private sales as well, as in order to validate the person was who they said they were, you'd have to see ID, which means you could be finding out the guy is a criminal while he's standing in your front foyer...hehe... :)
 
OlNate said:
Nah, I didn't say it was.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't; I was just trying to show that I agreed with your post. Poor writing on my part.

As I originally said, it's about the only hole I can find...didn't say it was a gaping hole. :) Direct access to NICS is also a good initiative...but I see that problematic for private sales as well, as in order to validate the person was who they said they were, you'd have to see ID, which means you could be finding out the guy is a criminal while he's standing in your front foyer...hehe... :)
Click to expand...

Not that I'd conduct a gun sale with a stranger in my house, but if I did, "good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" ;)
 
Rucker61 said:
I know you didn't; I was just trying to show that I agreed with your post. Poor writing on my part.
Click to expand...

lol...nah, man, I was agreeing with you, no poor writing. Isn't it messy when guys that are supposed to be brawling, per political leaning assumptions, actually agree with each other? haha... It's all good, no need to explain.

Rucker61 said:
Not that I'd conduct a gun sale with a stranger in my house, but if I did, "good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" ;)
Click to expand...

lol...maybe...or maybe he had one too... :) And ownership of a gun doesn't imply readiness to get into a gun fight...maybe I'm a pacifist that enjoys target practice...

(I'm going down this road to both make the point that there is always a risk, no matter how silly or extreme the example is, it applies somewhere to be sure, but also that no one's ever going to achieve "perfect"... Rights always come with an implied cost / risk, depending on their usage...but that's up to the individual - I have the freedom of speech, but using that to walk into a biker bar and call everyone a bunch of trash is probably something I wouldn't do, despite being free to...lol... Gun owners need to manage their own personal risk in private sales, this shouldn't be the job of gun control. Gun control should only set out the parameters, where constitutionally permitted, what people do within those parameters is on them - it's a gun, the danger is inherent and implied...and kind of the point...hehe)
 
Kal'Stang said:
The newest talking point of those that love gun control: Keep guns out of the wrong hands.

How do we keep guns out of the wrong hands? How exactly do you determine this? Since this is about keeping guns out of the wrong hands this requires that we identify the wrong hands before they have a chance to do harm. How is this determined?

Let me address a couple of the expected responses.

1: Keep guns away from the mentally ill: Ok. Agreed. However, it is already illegal for anyone deemed to have a mental illness to own a gun or to sell a gun to. There is also a process in which this is determined. So, this is already being done. What more can be done in this regard? Note: It HAS to be tailored to where it will not infringe on everyone else's Rights. You know, people that are not mentally ill...

2: Keep guns away from those that are criminal: This too is already done. Anyone that has been charged and convicted with a felony that merits at least 1 year in prison is barred from owning any guns. It is also illegal in pretty much every state to possess a gun while under investigation, have a restraining order due to domestic violence, and other situations. Note about this: The majority of crimes committed while in possession of a gun are crimes committed by people with rap sheets. How do you prevent these people from getting a hold of a gun when they are already legally barred from owning or even possessing a gun? UBC's? The federal government can't implement that, States can, but not the Federal Government as they do not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce. Plus people have a Right to Privacy. Add to this the fact that most people that illegally possess guns get those guns via theft or straw purchases (which are illegal already) or the black market...you're going to have your work cut out for you on this one. Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not. History of technology shows us this.

Feel free to add to this. The end goal: Keep guns out of the wrong hands. How? What? Where? Why?
Click to expand...

There have been many proposed solutions that "claim" not to prevent ownership of a firearm; however, there is no current or conceived means to effectively prevent a person from using a firearm for despicable means. Banning firearms from everyone will not prevent a determine individual from illegally obtaining a firearm, anymore than the locks on a vehicle will prevent a determined thief from breaking into that vehicle. One may ask "why would one need a firearm that can kill 20 - 30 people at a time? " "Need" has nothing to do with the equation, even if you limit the number of rounds a firearm may hold to two rounds, a criminal with the resources and desire will find a way to do what they are intent on doing.
 
Big Ed said:
There have been many proposed solutions that "claim" not to prevent ownership of a firearm; however, there is no current or conceived means to effectively prevent a person from using a firearm for despicable means. Banning firearms from everyone will not prevent a determine individual from illegally obtaining a firearm, anymore than the locks on a vehicle will prevent a determined thief from breaking into that vehicle. One may ask "why would one need a firearm that can kill 20 - 30 people at a time? " "Need" has nothing to do with the equation, even if you limit the number of rounds a firearm may hold to two rounds, a criminal with the resources and desire will find a way to do what they are intent on doing.
Click to expand...

The point is to reduce gun deaths......not eliminate them
 
TurtleDude said:
the number of good people ignorantly selling guns to felons is minuscule
Click to expand...

Again, no disagreement. The whole point of my original post is that this was the only thing I could see that could close a gap...didn't say how big the gap was.
 
OlNate said:
Again, no disagreement. The whole point of my original post is that this was the only thing I could see that could close a gap...didn't say how big the gap was.
Click to expand...

not enough to justify passing a law that cannot be enforced anyway
 
Kal'Stang said:
Even more so when 3D Printing advances enough to where people can print metal objects in their home. Which IS going to happen whether you think it will or not.
Click to expand...
They already do make 3D printers that print in metal, although they're super expensive so its mostly just the very rich people that have them.
 
X Factor said:
Keeping guns out of the “wrong hands” sure sounds reasonable until you realize the only way that can truly happen is to keep them out of everyone’s hands, which is the true ultimate goal.
Click to expand...

Everyone's hands except those who work for the government.
 
Limiting guns to the army and the police would not be fair to good American citizens who want to own guns.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same use as a car, lawnmower or fishing rod stored in one's garage has. It is readily available for use as required/desired. Whether you consider hunting, target shooting or self-defense "practical" is of no concern to me. Whether to restrict or protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms was also considered - the result of that consideration exists in the US constitution.
Click to expand...

That is quite a misconstrued point. You are claiming that objects in which have the primary purpose is not to inflict harm or to kill are comparable to a weapon, that is a firearm. That is your way of justifying a weapon being in your home and it simply doesn't hold up.

The USA is one of the only countries that it would be considered "normal" that a firearm is "readily available for use as required/desired". Few other developed countries follow this absurd principle. A principle that is giving the right to attain a firearm just as easy as getting into your car and the correlation just seems to be ignored that the US has the highest firearm death/injury rate of most developed countries. Am I incorrect in asserting that notion????????

The very fact you deny practicality of different actions proves that your avoiding the unjustified notions your putting forth. So according to you hunting and self defence are the same thing?? (is that what your are alluding to?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom