Never ever trust a yankee

[Shane]

I normally am 100% on board with your opinions because they are usually sensible, well thought out and articulated well. This however I can’t stand with you on.

This sill only place additional burdens on law abiding gun owners because they are the ones that follow the law. There are too many guns in circulation for this to be seriously effective.

I asked in a previous post if anyone could tell me how many of these types of shootings involved private sales. I don’t recall anyone answering but up until Midland the answer was none in recorded times. So my stance is we shouldn’t burden the millions of law abiding gun owners over the acts of ONE deranged individual.

I do agree there is already plenty of avenues in place to address folks that shouldn’t own guns, it’s just that our outdated and inept systems aren’t effective or people just flat don’t follow the laws we already have in place.

Government ineptitude at its finest. The last thing we need to do is give them more power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I completely agree that the private sale "loophole" isn't a real problem or issue, and closing it by requiring background checks for private sales would do little to prevent violent crime. I'm not at all excited about giving the government any additional power on anything, much less on gun laws. But looking at the big picture, I don't really see it as a huge shift of power if private gun sales required a background check. As a result, I think we could use it as a bargaining chip in the STUPID political game that we're stuck with to force some positive change in some of the other areas that desperately need to be addressed and could actually do some good if they were addressed.


Just my opinion. I'm happy to do without background checks on private sales. Like I said, I don't think they'd make much difference. But I just don't think it would be the end of the world if we had them, especially if it was a means to get some action on other things that actually could make a positive difference. I would definitely be opposed to passing a universal background check law by itself without anything truly meaningful to address mental health, increased compliance with background check database requirements, etc... Tying it to meaningful action in other areas would probably guarantee that a universal background check law would never pass anyway, sadly. It's insane that the other side won't do anything about the real issues.

This is how I see it as well...



To that, I would add that one thing that would cause some to stop and think before they act out in gun violence, if a firearm is used in the commission of any felony, the maximum penalty should be the death penalty, and once proven the gun was used and the perp was the one who committed the offence, by using a firearm to commit the crime, the perp also foregoes the multiple appeals... One appeal, then if nothing is overturned or changed, the needle (or a rope) in 30 days.


Anyone willing to use a gun to commit a crime is willing to take a life. Therefore is by default willing to give up his/her life in committing the crime.

I'm all for using the death penalty for convicted violent criminals as well. It's a deterrent for many. But some of these insane nut jobs are looking for a high profile way to die. I don't think a drawn out process that eventually ends with a lethal injection is going to be a deterrent for those folks. There's no sense in keeping them sheltered and fed for 50 more years if they survive their suicide by cop attempt though.

[M16]

The current bill floating around (H.R.8 - Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019) does have an exemption for family...

" Paragraph (1) shall not apply to: a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren, if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law;"

Anybody who supports this is a slow learner. What do you think is going to happen when an inherited gun is used in a mass shooting? Keep on giving until there’s nothing left to give. Death by a thousand cuts.

[Shane]

Anybody who supports this is a slow learner. What do you think is going to happen when an inherited gun is used in a mass shooting? Keep on giving until there’s nothing left to give. Death by a thousand cuts.

What do you think would happen in that scenario if the proposed background check referenced above was in effect? Serious question.

[M16]

What do you think would happen in that scenario if the proposed background check referenced above was in effect? Serious question.

Without a doubt there would be laws introduced to do away with the family exemption from background checks.

[Shane]

Without a doubt there would be laws introduced to do away with the family exemption from background checks.

I don't doubt they'd be proposed. They've already proposed it. Most of the school shooters used guns owned by their parents that they took from home. So, background check or not, the folks that just want to take all the guns are already making that argument. It's not been something that has had any hope of gaining traction though. Hopefully it would stay that way (just a proposed pipe dream for the gun banner folks), as 99.999% of all the family gift/inheritance gun transfers are absolutely harmless, and all but the most rabid gun banner types recognize that.

In today's world and political environment, anything is possible at any time for any reason though. That's the only thing we can know for sure, unfortunately. That's why I believe (and that's all it is - my belief and opinion) that we're best served by remaining rational and reasonable rather than combative even on small non-issue points. I can't prove I'm right. It's just my opinion on how to best deal with the division and insanity we're facing.

[Mike D]

I completely agree that the private sale "loophole" isn't a real problem or issue, and closing it by requiring background checks for private sales would do little to prevent violent crime. I'm not at all excited about giving the government any additional power on anything, much less on gun laws. But looking at the big picture, I don't really see it as a huge shift of power if private gun sales required a background check. As a result, I think we could use it as a bargaining chip in the STUPID political game that we're stuck with to force some positive change in some of the other areas that desperately need to be addressed and could actually do some good if they were addressed.


Just my opinion. I'm happy to do without background checks on private sales. Like I said, I don't think they'd make much difference. But I just don't think it would be the end of the world if we had them, especially if it was a means to get some action on other things that actually could make a positive difference. I would definitely be opposed to passing a universal background check law by itself without anything truly meaningful to address mental health, increased compliance with background check database requirements, etc... Tying it to meaningful action in other areas would probably guarantee that a universal background check law would never pass anyway, sadly. It's insane that the other side won't do anything about the real issues.



I'm all for using the death penalty for convicted violent criminals as well. It's a deterrent for many. But some of these insane nut jobs are looking for a high profile way to die. I don't think a drawn out process that eventually ends with a lethal injection is going to be a deterrent for those folks. There's no sense in keeping them sheltered and fed for 50 more years if they survive their suicide by cop attempt though.

I guess that’s the difference, I’m not interested or willing to pander to political games when it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Shane]

I guess that’s the difference, I’m not interested or willing to pander to political games when it comes to Constitutionally guaranteed rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm not interested in it either. There shouldn't even be any arguments over Constitutional rights. But that doesn't change the reality that there are arguments and outright wars over them today, whether it makes any sense or not. It truly sucks.

The way I see it, we have 3 options on how to deal with that reality:

1. Give up (not even close to being a good or realistic option)
2. Dig in until the bullets start flying and trust we'll win the next civil war and that so many of the other guys will die that what few remain will give up fighting and arguing after the bullets quit flying. (a terrible option)
3. Keep fighting and negotiating within the legal realm, standing firm on the big issues and basic principles, while being willing to give and take on a few meaningless points here and there in hopes to hold things together without losing the big things while we avoid an actual civil war. (Sucky option that, to me, seems like the least horrible.)

[jerp]

I'm looking for the link - I read a study done by one of the groups that advocates for gun control. They are academics who research what is effective and what is not. They recently published a study on what has happened in several states (Colorado for one) that have passed a background check requirement for private sales. They were disappointed to find that in the years since passage there has been only a very small increase in NICS requests which leads them to believe the law is largely being ignored. They also did a comprehensive survey of sheriff departments and found that in most jurisdictions LEO see enforcement of these laws as such low priority it amounts to no enforcement. Maybe a federal law with some teeth in it penalty-wise will change that but I doubt it.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Shane, I'd like to hear your assessment of what exactly "...shall not be infringed..." means in the 2nd Amendment. I will give you my personal assessment and opinion first.
The Second Amendment to our Constitution was put in place specifically to protect us from a tyrannical government first and foremost. At the time of its writing, our forefathers did not have to worry about or consider idiots like these mass-shooters. As you and I can probably both attest to, when we were in high school and first got our driver's license, we'd have our guns in our vehicles when we went to school once hunting season was open so we could hit the woods immediately after school without wasting time going back home to get 'em. Further, I'd venture to say that when you and your father may have gone to a gun show in your youth, everyone was walking the isles and talking about hunting and shooting game or targets, and targets that may have been on sale were not silhouettes of human beings. They were turkey heads, squirrels, deer, hogs and the like... What has changed? The guns haven't changed... well they may have taken on a different appearance, but mechanically, they have not changed much... The Constitution hasn't changed. It has not been amended in a long time. So what has changed? People and attitudes have changed and that's it... The best visible example I can give you for illustrating that change is the same gun show that you'd walk around in today... Just walk around one today and listen to the conversation. Listen on the discussions of how to best conceal, or what is the best tactical advantage of this design or that design... The human condition has gone down hill in the last 30 to 50 years. The VERY LAST thing we need to have done now is to have our 2nd Amendment rights watered down any more than they already are... Why should it be illegal for me to have an AR-15 with a 10" barrel, or a shotgun with a 12" barrel? That makes absolutely no sense. Why should I have to ask permission to improve the design of my rifle by adding a device to reduce the sound of the shot... It goes on and on... I cannot think of a single item that supporters of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution should endorse now. Quite the contrary. We should roll back these restrictive laws while at the same time making gun violence crimes punishable by death and even death swiftly once guilt is determined.... even death by firing squad... 30 days after conviction.

[Shane]

Shane, I'd like to hear your assessment of what exactly "...shall not be infringed..." means in the 2nd Amendment. I will give you my personal assessment and opinion first.
The Second Amendment to our Constitution was put in place specifically to protect us from a tyrannical government first and foremost. At the time of its writing, our forefathers did not have to worry about or consider idiots like these mass-shooters. As you and I can probably both attest to, when we were in high school and first got our driver's license, we'd have our guns in our vehicles when we went to school once hunting season was open so we could hit the woods immediately after school without wasting time going back home to get 'em. Further, I'd venture to say that when you and your father may have gone to a gun show in your youth, everyone was walking the isles and talking about hunting and shooting game or targets, and targets that may have been on sale were not silhouettes of human beings. They were turkey heads, squirrels, deer, hogs and the like... What has changed? The guns haven't changed... well they may have taken on a different appearance, but mechanically, they have not changed much... The Constitution hasn't changed. It has not been amended in a long time. So what has changed? People and attitudes have changed and that's it... The best visible example I can give you for illustrating that change is the same gun show that you'd walk around in today... Just walk around one today and listen to the conversation. Listen on the discussions of how to best conceal, or what is the best tactical advantage of this design or that design... The human condition has gone down hill in the last 30 to 50 years. The VERY LAST thing we need to have done now is to have our 2nd Amendment rights watered down any more than they already are... Why should it be illegal for me to have an AR-15 with a 10" barrel, or a shotgun with a 12" barrel? That makes absolutely no sense. Why should I have to ask permission to improve the design of my rifle by adding a device to reduce the sound of the shot... It goes on and on... I cannot think of a single item that supporters of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution should endorse now. Quite the contrary. We should roll back these restrictive laws while at the same time making gun violence crimes punishable by death and even death swiftly once guilt is determined.... even death by firing squad... 30 days after conviction.

You and I don't disagree on any of that, Charlie. I'm not at all willing to go along with restrictions on barrel length, magazine capacity, suppressors or any of that. I agree that the restrictions on those things that are already in place should be repealed.

I am not opposed to background checks though. They don't affect my ability to own all the guns and ammo I want, because I pass them with flying colors - just like you and everybody else on this thread. And they only cost me a few minutes of my time to show my CHL and fill out a form and maybe $10-20 if I'm not buying from a licensed dealer in person. I don't see that as a disastrous violation of my constitutional rights. It doesn't stop me from owning whatever firearms I want to own.

As you point out, the human condition was not perfect when we were kids, but it's a lot worse today. I don't think it's a bad thing to do our best to keep the most evil and/or mentally unstable people among us from having guns - as long as we can do it without preventing the rest of us from having all the guns, magazines, and ammo that we want. The best we can ever dream up and implement toward that end still won't be good enough to prevent all violent crime. Death penalties won't either. But every little thing we can do that would help some, I believe, we should do.

I'm not saying you or anyone else is bad or stupid or wrong for not agreeing with me. I'm just trying to explain my reasoning for why I hold these opinions. Doesn't make me right or you wrong. I'm just trying to figure out a way to navigate the minefield without blowing up a bunch of stuff. Might not be possible. I hope it is. And I hope that whoever has the right ideas on how to get there is able to explain it all to us and get us headed in the right direction.

[Shane]

I'm looking for the link - I read a study done by one of the groups that advocates for gun control. They are academics who research what is effective and what is not. They recently published a study on what has happened in several states (Colorado for one) that have passed a background check requirement for private sales. They were disappointed to find that in the years since passage there has been only a very small increase in NICS requests which leads them to believe the law is largely being ignored. They also did a comprehensive survey of sheriff departments and found that in most jurisdictions LEO see enforcement of these laws as such low priority it amounts to no enforcement. Maybe a federal law with some teeth in it penalty-wise will change that but I doubt it.

I don't doubt it, John. I'm sure compliance is extremely low. But the civil liability risk, with those laws on the books in those states, is WAY higher than it is for folks in states that don't have the same laws. If/when somebody commits a violent crime with one of those guns that was sold without complying with the law, the seller that didn't commit the violent act will probably be successfully sued by the victims of the violent crime.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Thanks Shane. Always think long and hard on what you post.

[RiverRat1]

I'm not interested in it either. There shouldn't even be any arguments over Constitutional rights. But that doesn't change the reality that there are arguments and outright wars over them today, whether it makes any sense or not. It truly sucks.

The way I see it, we have 3 options on how to deal with that reality:

1. Give up (not even close to being a good or realistic option)
2. Dig in until the bullets start flying and trust we'll win the next civil war and that so many of the other guys will die that what few remain will give up fighting and arguing after the bullets quit flying. (a terrible option)
3. Keep fighting and negotiating within the legal realm, standing firm on the big issues and basic principles, while being willing to give and take on a few meaningless points here and there in hopes to hold things together without losing the big things while we avoid an actual civil war. (Sucky option that, to me, seems like the least horrible.)

I say #2

#3 just leads us to #2 but the longer we sit back and hope the weaker our side gets. We are losing ground every year and the pace is accelerating.


I know it sucks and we're stuck in this political BS... And nothing much we can do about it. But how much time, effort, and money is this costing our Country?

Think about how much could/should be getting done besides this huge waste. Nearly every politician in the Country is wasting lots of time with this BS and it boils down to saving roughly zero lives.

We all know that money and time could be used to save tons of lives if put to good use.

[Shane]

I say #2

#3 just leads us to #2 but the longer we sit back and hope the weaker our side gets. We are losing ground every year and the pace is accelerating.

I know it sucks and we're stuck in this political BS... And nothing much we can do about it. But how much time, effort, and money is this costing our Country?

Think about how much could/should be getting done besides this huge waste. Nearly every politician in the Country is wasting lots of time with this BS and it boils down to saving roughly zero lives.

We all know that money and time could be used to save tons of lives if put to good use.

I'm not as pessimistic, I guess. Things are always cyclical. I like #3 better, as it gives us time to educate and persuade more folks to see the lunacy of the other side and the common sense of our side. I'm not advocating for sitting back and just hoping. I pray that bullets flying isn't where we end up, regardless of timing.

Actual bullets flying civil war would cost a LOT more too, and not just in money.

[SaltwaterSlick]

I'm not as pessimistic, I guess. Things are always cyclical. I like #3 better, as it gives us time to educate and persuade more folks to see the lunacy of the other side and the common sense of our side. I'm not advocating for sitting back and just hoping. I pray that bullets flying isn't where we end up, regardless of timing.

Actual bullets flying civil war would cost a LOT more too, and not just in money.

Can we get a big old Amen on that?!!