Restrictions Gun Owners Want?

B

BarryLee

New member
Daniel W. Webster a professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins has written an article for CNN detailing what he believes are the new restrictions that firearms enthusiast support. He makes the case for closing various “loopholes” and requiring background checks for all gun purchases. He also recommends expanding restrictions on gun sales to include more misdemeanor convictions.

Also, an interesting thing to consider is that most of us on this forum represent only a certain portion of gun owners. We are most likely more engaged and involved than the average gun owner might be. So, it is possible we could have a situation where a large number of gun owners may support restrictions that might ultimately be bad for all.

I suppose the article does have some good points for debate, so what do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/webster-giffords-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
 
The frog in the pot is boiled one degree at a time.I read the same Constitution you do.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arm Shall Not Be Infringed"

We are Not a Democracy!!We are a Constitutional Republic.Our individual liberties are ,in part,defined by our Constitution.It is not up to any coalition of gun owners to give up that right.They do not own it.
A lynch mob is Democracy.
 
What do I think? I note that he cites MAIG as one of his sources. I note that he refers to the imaginary "gun show loophole" as an "absurd loophole." I think he likes the idea of gun control, and he's gone on the hunt for statistics to make it look reasonable. That's what I think.
 
I went to a gunshow last weekend.I have been to a lot of them.The gun show loophole is a lie,in my experience.Signs going into the show clearly state all firearms transactions require background check and legal transfer,just like in a gun shop.
Folks who refer to the "gunshow loophole" as fact are either ignorant,liars,or both.We need to confront it every time it is repeated.
 
BarryLee said:
...so what do you think?
Click to expand...

I think that the level to which most people on this site are informed is the vast exception, not the rule.

No matter the issue, from taxes to abortion to gun rights to immigration, by far most people I talk to in the real world can do little more than parrot talking points they get from (if you're lucky) TV news and (more likely) their acquaintances filtered opinions of what THEY got from TV news.

Many people spout talking points that are diametrically opposed to the opinions they expose if you ask them direct questions on the issues to uncover their true beliefs.

In other words, they have no idea what they're saying or how it is in opposition to their stated beliefs and, therefore, their stated opinions on such matters is not terribly relevent.
 
Folks who refer to the "gunshow loophole" as fact are either ignorant,liars,or both.
Click to expand...

The "loophole" has more to do with private party sales... those occasions where someone takes a gun to a show to sell to another attendee than buying from a FFL with a table. But you can bet the regulation has to do with all private sales, not just those at a show.

The people pushing such things either have no idea how gun shows actually work (ignorant) or know full well what they are asking for (liars).
 
Some states, I think, demand background checks at shows for private sales. Correct me if I'm wrong. Most don't. Sales from FFLs are controlled

If things were to be passed (which I doubt), the ones that probably have traction are:

1. Requiring NICS at shows for private sales.

2. Some limit on larger capacity mags. That's stupid as the available supply of such makes stopping new ones meaningless. That was found out in the first AWB. Proposing confiscation is going to be a horror for those who propose such.

Those who propose new restrictions have little idea about actual efficacy or implementation. I suppose they could pull off the NICS for private sales at shows but that's about it.

I don't fault those who lost a loved one or had a tragedy like Giffords. However, they really don't think through how what they want would be done.

It's similar to demanding a return to prohibition if your loved one was killed by a DUI.

The suggested measures wouldn't impact crime in the slightest. We know that from the AWB period.
 
in a parallel argument, we could advocate that news people should lose their rights if they misspell words, get facts wrong, don't quote people accurately....

or...if he jaywalks, gets a ticket, he can't have any paper or ink or a computer for 6 months....

we have plenty of laws, lets enforce what we have.
 
i have no problem with backround checks to keep firearms away from violent felons...but then again eventually they will probably make a fender bender an act of violence :p
 
I know a guy who was charged with DV because he raised his voice to his girlfriend. A loud argument, nobody was swinging or throwing anything, just yelling. :(
 
Harsh words are the new "abuse." Seriously. At least 20 years ago I dated a woman who steadfastly maintained that she had been abused by her father when she was a child.

The "abuse" turned out to be two incidents:

(1) He once yelled at her for doing something dumb

(2) He once left his bedroom door ajar and she peeked in and saw him getting dressed.

Yes, this was "abuse" -- and she had shrinks who validated that for her.
 
We need to wake up and smell the roses for the roses they are.
Gun control is not about crime or criminals, its all about disarming the American people so they can lead us around like a bunch of lambs.
Look how many times congress has gone against the constitution like passing Obamacare for all citizens but not for themselves, look at how they voted that congressmen cannot be charged with sexual harassment. The constitution says congress shall pass no law that applies to the people that does not apply to themselves as well.
Gun control is not about crime or criminals, its all about disarming the American citizen because they have gone so far and go farther everyday that they are afraid the American people will say enough is enough
 
Give an inch they will take a mile; before you know it in States like California an unpaid ticket will preclude you from gun ownership. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


In my state of Illinois a background check is not required for private sales but a FOID card is(the process of getting one involves a background check). Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in the country yet no ammount of new gun laws have blunted the plague of "gun crime". Given that what would any additional laws accomplish besides making a few anti gun types momentairly content?
 
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is little more than a front for the Joyce Foundation, and Webster is often their mouthpiece.

These are the people who vowed to crush the 2nd Amendment and alienate all of us from any part of the conversation 20 years ago. Now, they want to open a dialogue. Why? Because they're losing so badly I almost pity them.

Almost. We don't owe Webster, Helmke, Brady, or any of the others anything. We certainly lose nothing by ignoring their manipulative requests for debates over things we don't need to compromise any more.
 
NONE!...

NONE!......... (The only gun restrictions I want to see is on politicians shooting their mouths off with lies. If its a misdemeanor to lie to the police, and a felony to lie to congress, shouldn't it be a Capitol crime to lie to the public?)
 
Can't remember where I first came across this illustration. I know it was someone's blog, but can't seem to find the link anywhere. But it was brilliant, and it's stuck with me.

The story goes like this ...

I am sitting at a table in the park, smiling because I have a wonderful, delicious chocolate cake in front of me. I love cake!

A big, ugly-looking dude comes up and says, "Give me your cake. Now."

I say, "No! It's MY cake..."

He says, "Aww, you're right. Let's just ... compromise. I'll take half the cake, but you can keep the other half."

I say, "It's my cake..."

He says, "Don't be unreasonable. I have agreed to compromise with you even though I don't have to. I want the whole cake, but I'm only taking half."

He's bigger than I am, and looks like he could beat me up, so I give him half my cake. Call it a necessary compromise.

Five minutes later, dude comes back. There's chocolate icing on his lip. "Give me your cake," he says.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

pax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top