Mr. Heartbreak Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Convicted felons, people under indictment for a felony, people deemed mentally ill, people charged with domestic violence, people with restraining orders and people who use illegal drugs (even marijuana) are all legally forbidden to purchase firearms. If they do so (or attempt to do so) they are breaking the law.Sadly, this latest clown was hearing voices and was under psychiatric care recently. If nothing else, our system needs to be coordinated among mental health providers at all levels, law enforcement, and gun dealers large and small. This guy should not have had a legal right to any firearms, but he did have them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 No. The exact wording on the ATF form is: "Are you an unlawful use of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"Wild. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Oh, I didn't forget that gun ownership was severely restricted. In fact, I would encourage that.So when you say "we aren't coming to take away your precious guns" you really mean, "yes, we are coming to take your precious guns." At least you're being honest, unlike the politicians who swear they aren't going to take anyone's guns, despite the fact that we all know that's exactly what they'd like to do. For our own safety, of course. yes, obviously, criminals would still keep theirs.So how exactly does it make us any safer if the criminals - who already commit the majority of gun crimes -- remain armed while trustworthy and law-abiding citizens are disarmed? How do I think it would go over with the citizens? Shittily, with some.It would make Waco and Ruby Ridge look tiny in comparison. Really, you don't have to worry about these kinds of things happening.I know and thank God. No politician would ever get elected if he advocated taking the nation's legally owned firearms away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 This is my prediction, this will be debated for another week or so, then we will move on to something else. Then in 4 months time someone else will shoot somebody else (or many people) and then we will talk about it again. People will get all keyed up and then it will die again. Nothing will get done. People will die. This is the society we live in.You forgot the step where after the discussion you post a smug assessment of how poorly we all discuss these matters on the internet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 So when you say "we aren't coming to take away your precious guns" you really mean, "yes, we are coming to take your precious guns." At least you're being honest, unlike the politicians who swear they aren't going to take anyone's guns, despite the fact that we all know that's exactly what they'd like to do. For our own safety, of course. So how exactly does it make us any safer if the criminals - who already commit the majority of gun crimes -- remain armed while trustworthy and law-abiding citizens are disarmed? It would make Waco and Ruby Ridge look tiny in comparison. I know and thank God. No politician would ever get elected if he advocated taking the nation's legally owned firearms away.I'm not taking anything away from anyone. I am just stating an idealistic preference. I know it is not going to happen, because it would be beyond unpopular...which means that the original statement "we [make that "no one"] is coming to take away your precious guns." However, your comment about politicians makes you sound pretty paranoid. Sorry. These politicians just want to get reelected. Most of them will say whatever they think their constituents want to hear. They don't want to disarm anyone. Even Gabby Giffords and her husband own guns. The answer to your question about criminals remaining armed is the standard straw man among gun control advocates. The huge statistical drop in gun violence in countries where stricter gun control laws have been enforced is the actual result....not massive amounts of trigger happy criminals running around blasting away at cowering, disarmed, law-abiding citizens. Again, a gun owner is only law-abiding until he breaks the law. (Unless he's George Zimmerman, then he's just standing his ground. Couldn't resist.) I am really not trying to change your mind about any of this. I just think it would help you to see that there is another point of view, and it's not nutty or some kind of fascism. I understand your view on this, I just feel differently. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 You forgot the step where after the discussion you post a smug assessment of how poorly we all discuss these matters on the internet. that is implied. That works for me. I'd rather the government do nothing if the 'something' is something like turning me into a felon for owning a piece of plastic with a spring inside. So you are ok with people getting shot and dying as long as the government doesn't turn you into a "felon" (whatever that means). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 These politicians just want to get reelected. Most of them will say whatever they think their constituents want to hear. They don't want to disarm anyone. I don't believe for a second that the most ardent anti-gun campaigners don't want to disarm anyone, but I wish they'd just be honest about it. It's like when Obama had his sudden, embarrassment-driven 'evolution' on same-sex marriage -- everyone knew he was for it, but he hemmed, hawed, lied and obfuscated his true beliefs in order to be elected. To me, that's a character flaw and not something I want to see in any of my elected officials. It's really not that difficult to tell the truth. The huge statistical drop in gun violence in countries where stricter gun control laws have been enforced is the actual result....And what about the statistical drop in gun murders in the United States even as Americans arm themselves in record numbers? So you are ok with people getting shot and dying as long as the government doesn't turn you into a "felon" (whatever that means). They will be shot and killed despite any new laws that politicians pass. Shooting and murdering people has been illegal for centuries, so it's foolish to think that criminals will suddenly obey a new law. As for the felony thing, yes, it's a big deal to me. If I were to be convicted of a felony I'd lose my job, my house, my right to vote and my right to possess firearms. I'd probably lose my freedom, too. That's a heck of a price to pay for screwing an inert plastic handle onto my hunting rifle because a bunch of rich men and women in a marble building (guarded by armed men, I might add) decided that it was important for them to look like they were 'doing something' about gun violence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Hixter is a pimp Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Hixter is a pimpIs pimping a felony? If so, no I'm not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I don't believe for a second that the most ardent anti-gun campaigners don't want to disarm anyone, but I wish they'd just be honest about it. As for the felony thing, yes, it's a big deal to me. If I were to be convicted of a felony I'd lose my job, my house, my right to vote and my right to possess firearms. I'd probably lose my freedom, too. That's a heck of a price to pay for screwing an inert plastic handle onto my hunting rifle because a bunch of rich men and women in a marble building (guarded by armed men, I might add) decided that it was important for them to look like they were 'doing something' about gun violence.I'm sure you're right, but in all honesty, so what? I'm sure the true gun nuts also want it to be mandatory for every head of household to carry a gun - as I already mentioned, this law exists in some places - even though I, for one, don't want a gun. Neither extreme is going to get their way, so us talking about it is nothing more than that: talk. I'm not going to be forced to buy a gun, and you're not going to be forced to give yours up. If existing gun laws change, you won't automatically become a felon. You will have the opportunity to obey the new law by driving somewhere and turning your guns in. Of course, you live in TX, right? A very large state. If you have to travel, say, fifty or a hundred miles away to avoid having your civil rights violated, that should be no big deal ... after all that's the case for many poor people under Texas' punitive new voter ID laws, who will have to miss work and catch a bus to nowhere so they can get their brand spankin' new photo ID that was never required before. If they can sacrifice, you can too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hixter Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I'm sure the true gun nuts also want it to be mandatory for every head of household to carry a gunNot at all. The NRA and pro-gun people hold a very simple stance: stop demonizing and criminalizing those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Anyone who is legally allowed to possess a gun should be allowed to do so if he or she wishes to do so. you're not going to be forced to give yours up.It is already happening in states across the country. If I were to move back to California I would be committing a felony if I brought some of my firearms across the state line because of a couple pieces of plastic that are attached to them. My only recourse would be to get rid of them; I would be disarmed. It would do nothing whatsoever to make the citizens any safer. Of course, you live in TX, right? A very large state. If you have to travel, say, fifty or a hundred miles away to avoid having your civil rights violated, that should be no big deal Texas is 800 miles across. Texas' punitive new voter ID lawsThat has no bearing on this discussion, but I'll note that you must show a government-issued photo ID to purchase a firearm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 It is already happening in states across the country. If I were to move back to California I would be committing a felony if I brought some of my firearms across the state line because of a couple pieces of plastic that are attached to them. My only recourse would be to get rid of them.Honestly, I have never owned any firearms, so I don't follow this stuff that closely. That is great news! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Don Draper Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I have no idea why we're talking about the gun belonging to someone's grandfather. LouieB is right that this will continue to happen. This will continue to happen regardless of gun control legislation. As long as anyone is allowed to buy a gun legally, then those who are not allowed to buy guns legally will be able to purchase them through other means. I still haven't figured out why the lives of children of Newtown seem to register as more valuable than an equally defenseless adult victim of any other rampage. I'm enjoying the apparent (and admittedly anecdotal) shock about a black mass-killing gunman, especially since the John Allen Muhammed sniper shootings also occurred in DC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Alexis had a history of encounters with law enforcement over firearms. Authorities in Texas in 2010 arrested him for firing a round through his apartment ceiling. He was not charged. In 2004 in Seattle, he shot the rear tires of a construction worker's car after an altercation. Despite those incidents, Alexis received and maintained a secret security clearance during his tenure in the Navy Reserve from 2008 to 2011. I think maybe there's a problem somewhere in here Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I'm enjoying the apparent (and admittedly anecdotal) shock about a black mass-killing gunman, especially since the John Allen Muhammed sniper shootings also occurred in DC. Glad you find some enjoyment in this Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Don Draper Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Glad you find some enjoyment in thisMelodramatic to be parsing verbs, no? You seem smart enough to know that I'm not leaning back in my chair, smirking and laughing at all this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Maybe give more teeth to the laws that govern the background check? http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf I'd like to know how many applications - in which a person lied about a "No" answer in 11b-11l, and was later discovered to have lied - how many of those people have been prosecuted? How much follow-up work is done once the background check is processed? What fugitive would possibly answer "Yes" to "Are you a fugitive from justice?" Has there EVER been a submitted background check form with a YES to that question? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I think maybe there's a problem somewhere in hereThere is a huge problem there, and that is what I really want addressed on a federal level. If someone who is, like Hixter, a little paranoiac but wants to own half a dozen guns, fine and dandy. I have no problem with that. I think it's a little fetishistic and weird (for me, if I am going to move to another state, I don't want to have to worry about suddenly being a felon overnight, but hey...my simple solution would be to sell the offending guns...problem solved!), but whatever. That is just my feeling. The real problem is that we need a major, constantly-updated database of information that needs to be shared, on a mandatory basis, among law enforcement, mental health professionals, and those who deal in these incredibly deadly weapons. The background checks are all well and good, but people's mental heath status can change dramatically. I'm sorry, but if you shoot out someone's tires and shoot a gun through your apartment ceiling, you should be charged and you should lose that 2nd amendment right. Period. And the background questions Winston mentioned are incredibly weak. Who checks up on this stuff? Reminds me of the questions you have to fill out on the form when you emigrate to the U.S. ("Have you ever been part of a terrorist organization?" Oh, yes sir, I am a leader in Al-Qaeda. Christ almighty.) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Don Draper Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 And the background questions Winston mentioned are incredibly weak. Who checks up on this stuff? Reminds me of the questions you have to fill out on the form when you emigrate to the U.S. ("Have you ever been part of a terrorist organization?" Oh, yes sir, I am a leader in Al-Qaeda. Christ almighty.)My understanding of the purpose of these questions on forms is to add a perjury/lying under oath/whatever charge. In the case of the terrorist thing, I mean, that is the least of their problems, but for smaller questions it makes sense. Also, it's CYA - you look like idiots for putting it on the forms, but you look like bigger idiots of you don't ask. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Atticus Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 lawyers... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I still haven't figured out why the lives of children of Newtown seem to register as more valuable than an equally defenseless adult victim of any other rampage. Liar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Don Draper Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Heh. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 lawyers... guns and money Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Melodramatic to be parsing verbs, no? You seem smart enough to know that I'm not leaning back in my chair, smirking and laughing at all this. The sentiment still makes me uncomfortable Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 guns and moneyWell played Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.