5 ms·

I would argue that a majority of Americans do not understand exactly how a current firearm procurement actually works. It's like asking if cars should have saf

I would argue that a majority of Americans do not understand exactly how a current firearm procurement actually works. It's like asking if cars should have safety features. Of course you the vast majority of people will respond yes. The idea that in order for my father to give me a rifle, we would have to go to a federally licensed dealer (pay $50-100 for them to process us) to avoid becoming felons is absurd. A number of amendments to proposed legislation have sought to deal with this issue, but the champions of gun control really don't care.

SeanKilleen 14y ago
This is indeed an important point to make, and I'd never considered it -- thank you. While I think background checks should be mandatory on all gun purchases, I would agree that as a citizen, to support the second amendment, gun purchasers should not have to pay for these background checks and licenses entirely themselves. This is a time when, though it might not be my personal taste, I believe that a portion of taxes should go to either subsidies or the elimination of fees for these sort of checks. Such a program would ensure that gun owners chip in (through their taxes), and that a portion of everyone's taxes would be used to ensure both safer gun record keeping and the ability of gun ownership & transfers. I know nobody likes the idea of more taxes, but does this seem an equitable solution? Interested in your opinion.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
vec 14y ago
By the same logic, the idea that in order to give a car to one's teenage child one must go to a government office and get said teenager licensed is also absurd. Lets not forget that guns are devices whose primary function is to kill things very efficiently. I'd argue that if you're not willing to spend $50-$100 and wait a few days, then you're not treating that kind of transfer of power with the respect it deserves.
- steverb 14y ago
  Sorry, but you can give a car to anyone. You're not responsible for making sure they are a licensed driver, or that the car is registered. That's the recipient's problem, and as long as they aren't driving the car it's perfectly legal for them not to need either of those things.
  - glenra 14y ago
    Better still, they can even drive the car! Just can't drive it legally on the public roads. But they can drive it all they want on private property. If we treated guns like cars, a 14-year-old could buy as many guns as he wanted with no waiting period and possess them and keep them at home and use them at home and transport them elsewhere and use them freely at a private shooting range or in an emergency.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
mcherm 14y ago
FUD: The proposed legislation that (technically the proposed amendment, which was co-authored by my Senator, Pat Toomey) explicitly excluded transfers of weapons within a family -- those remained unregulated. Nevertheless, the amendment received only 54 votes out of 100.
- hga 14y ago
  That wasn't the only amendment up for a vote, and before being absolutely sure that carve out would hold up it would need examination in light of e.g. the "advertised on the Internet or any publication", and how the courts interpret it and many other parts of this at best very badly drafted amendment. To the extent we were able to analyze it in the time we had, it was clear Toomey had no experts helping him (the list of qualified lawyers is rather small, after all, but the errors, if they were that, in what were supposed to be pro-RKBA provisions were telling). Whereas part of this law was lifted straight from the horrible Schumer bill it was proposing to amend (that would go a lot further, its definitions of "transfer" were lethal), not surprising given that Schumer was also a co-sponsor along with anti-RKBA Kirk and drama queen trending anti-RKBA Manchin. Requiring NICS checks for all "transfers" was very much up for discussion (heck, even quasi-relevant to Newtown, except of course transfer by murder and theft is already illegal), so making that point in a general discussion is hardly illegitimate, let alone FUD.
  - mcherm 14y ago
    You clearly know more about it than I do. However, masonhensley's claim that "the champions of gun control really don't care" is plainly false. Perhaps the wording was wrong, but the clearly stated goal was NOT to prevent transfers within a family.
    - hga 14y ago
      I think it's a defensible statement. I grant you that no champions of gun control voted against Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (as we've been calling it as of late :-), excepting the special case of Harry Reid since Senate rules then allow him to bring it up again, but you don't have to step back very far. E.g. without the poison pills and gotchas in Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (again, details on request, and, yes, I probably do know more since I read all of it :-), it would have had a much better chance of success. But it's the "champions of gun control" who we assume e.g. inserted the nullification of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of '86 provisions for protected interstate travel at the same time they were ostensibly strengthened. Seriously, my move from Massachusetts to Virginia in 1991 would have been felonious if Manchin-Toomey-Sauron had been in effect then. Well, I suppose I could have arranged with two FFLs, one in each state, to ship my guns, but I hope you're getting the general point, it wasn't a "clean" bill, and that wasn't the fault of nominally pro-RKBA Toomey, except in his decision to sup with the devil in the first place (especially without a top flight food taster (serious pro-RKBA lawyer---lawyers would be an asset when dealing with the devil :-)).

SeanKilleen 14y ago

This is indeed an important point to make, and I'd never considered it -- thank you. While I think background checks should be mandatory on all gun purchases, I would agree that as a citizen, to support the second amendment, gun purchasers should not have to pay for these background checks and licenses entirely themselves. This is a time when, though it might not be my personal taste, I believe that a portion of taxes should go to either subsidies or the elimination of fees for these sort of checks. Such a program would ensure that gun owners chip in (through their taxes), and that a portion of everyone's taxes would be used to ensure both safer gun record keeping and the ability of gun ownership & transfers. I know nobody likes the idea of more taxes, but does this seem an equitable solution? Interested in your opinion.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

vec 14y ago

By the same logic, the idea that in order to give a car to one's teenage child one must go to a government office and get said teenager licensed is also absurd. Lets not forget that guns are devices whose primary function is to kill things very efficiently. I'd argue that if you're not willing to spend $50-$100 and wait a few days, then you're not treating that kind of transfer of power with the respect it deserves.

steverb 14y ago
Sorry, but you can give a car to anyone. You're not responsible for making sure they are a licensed driver, or that the car is registered. That's the recipient's problem, and as long as they aren't driving the car it's perfectly legal for them not to need either of those things.
- glenra 14y ago
  Better still, they can even drive the car! Just can't drive it legally on the public roads. But they can drive it all they want on private property. If we treated guns like cars, a 14-year-old could buy as many guns as he wanted with no waiting period and possess them and keep them at home and use them at home and transport them elsewhere and use them freely at a private shooting range or in an emergency.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

mcherm 14y ago

FUD: The proposed legislation that (technically the proposed amendment, which was co-authored by my Senator, Pat Toomey) explicitly excluded transfers of weapons within a family -- those remained unregulated. Nevertheless, the amendment received only 54 votes out of 100.

hga 14y ago
That wasn't the only amendment up for a vote, and before being absolutely sure that carve out would hold up it would need examination in light of e.g. the "advertised on the Internet or any publication", and how the courts interpret it and many other parts of this at best very badly drafted amendment. To the extent we were able to analyze it in the time we had, it was clear Toomey had no experts helping him (the list of qualified lawyers is rather small, after all, but the errors, if they were that, in what were supposed to be pro-RKBA provisions were telling). Whereas part of this law was lifted straight from the horrible Schumer bill it was proposing to amend (that would go a lot further, its definitions of "transfer" were lethal), not surprising given that Schumer was also a co-sponsor along with anti-RKBA Kirk and drama queen trending anti-RKBA Manchin. Requiring NICS checks for all "transfers" was very much up for discussion (heck, even quasi-relevant to Newtown, except of course transfer by murder and theft is already illegal), so making that point in a general discussion is hardly illegitimate, let alone FUD.
- mcherm 14y ago
  You clearly know more about it than I do. However, masonhensley's claim that "the champions of gun control really don't care" is plainly false. Perhaps the wording was wrong, but the clearly stated goal was NOT to prevent transfers within a family.
  - hga 14y ago
    I think it's a defensible statement. I grant you that no champions of gun control voted against Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (as we've been calling it as of late :-), excepting the special case of Harry Reid since Senate rules then allow him to bring it up again, but you don't have to step back very far. E.g. without the poison pills and gotchas in Manchin-Toomey-Sauron (again, details on request, and, yes, I probably do know more since I read all of it :-), it would have had a much better chance of success. But it's the "champions of gun control" who we assume e.g. inserted the nullification of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) of '86 provisions for protected interstate travel at the same time they were ostensibly strengthened. Seriously, my move from Massachusetts to Virginia in 1991 would have been felonious if Manchin-Toomey-Sauron had been in effect then. Well, I suppose I could have arranged with two FFLs, one in each state, to ship my guns, but I hope you're getting the general point, it wasn't a "clean" bill, and that wasn't the fault of nominally pro-RKBA Toomey, except in his decision to sup with the devil in the first place (especially without a top flight food taster (serious pro-RKBA lawyer---lawyers would be an asset when dealing with the devil :-)).