Defend your right to own a car.

[Sinfix_15]

Also, im still waiting for this conclusive data that less guns equals less crime?

[David88vert]

So, if the public gets universal background checks through, do you think maybe THEN a system would be developed to implement it?

It's possible. It would take funding. Who knows, I might even get called in to help design it.

Do you believe there is not a rudimentary version of this system in place?

If you are referring to the FFL dealers system, then yes, it is a rudimentary version. It is hardly ready for general public use though.

AND if such a system were developed, do you think it would have an impact on the sales of guns to criminals?

Not really. Criminals will always find ways to get what they want.

Answer me this - If we passed Feinstein's bill as she proposes it currently, how much of a reduction in murders by these weapons would we see in GA? Remember, we are starting with an average number of 17 murders committed per year with rifles overall from 2004-2011. What number of these 17 per year do you think would not be murdered by other means?

[.blank cd]

Absolutely not. It did not do anything positive or negative in making us safer OR leading to a loss of other freedoms. It did lead to discussion on the possibility of banning handguns though. There was not enough support for that. It also lead to repeated endeavors by Feinstein to try to make it a permanent ban, rather than just 10 years. She failed to extend the ban, but this time she is proposing to not have a time limit on the ban. That means no voting again in 10 years to see if it is working or not. Why not just propose another 10 year trial run?

Negotiating. Is this possible?

As I've said many times, please do.....
I ask you to explain things, and you just ignore them - see yesterday's posts, and the day before, and the day before that....

I'll give you a hint, the government manipulates this commodity all the time through policy. You posses this commodity right now. There wont be a time where you cant get this, You can go get as much of it as you want, or as much as you have. It's very dry, it's not always wet, but it can be liquid....

[David88vert]

Negotiating. Is this possible?

I'll give you a hint, the government manipulates this commodity all the time through policy. You posses this commodity right now. There wont be a time where you cant get this, You can go get as much of it as you want, or as much as you have. It's very dry, it's not always wet, but it can be liquid....

Negotiation is not only possible, it's an every day thing in Congress. That's doesn't mean that she isn't going to fight to pass the same bill that she proposed. She is not currently saying that she is open to any negotiation (although we both can agree that she is). She proposed the bill the way that it is stated, because she wants the bill passed that way, and she thought that with Sandy Hook, she might have a chance to get it passed this way.

"Hints"? Just man up and say what you mean. Little kids play guessing games.

[.blank cd]

Not really. Criminals will always find ways to get what they want.

Possibly, but then they'd have one less channel to acquire a gun through

Answer me this - If we passed Feinstein's bill as she proposes it currently, how much of a reduction in murders by these weapons would we see in GA? Remember, we are starting with an average number of 17 murders committed per year with rifles overall from 2004-2011. What number of these 17 per year do you think would not be murdered by other means?

Maybe 1 in GA, maybe 10. But if we're talking about a federal bill, does that not include all 50 states? If there's an average of 10-15 murders by rifle/year, and we reduced it by an average of 1-10, could that not be 50-500 preventable murders by a rifle?

And lets say they want to do it through other means, assault rifle control is not the only method of gun control that's being examined.

[.blank cd]

Negotiation is not only possible, it's an every day thing in Congress. That's doesn't mean that she isn't going to fight to pass the same bill that she proposed. She is not currently saying that she is open to any negotiation (although we both can agree that she is). She proposed the bill the way that it is stated, because she wants the bill passed that way, and she thought that with Sandy Hook, she might have a chance to get it passed this way.

So if you're a republican against gun control for whatever reason, and she holds firm to this bill, and it looks like its gaining some traction, are you more or less likely to say "well, hey, lets talk about this, maybe we can look into doing another 10 year run..."

"Hints"? Just man up and say what you mean. Little kids play guessing games.

Grown men know the answer.

[Sinfix_15]

Possibly, but then they'd have one less channel to acquire a gun through

Maybe 1 in GA, maybe 10. But if we're talking about a federal bill, does that not include all 50 states? If there's an average of 10-15 murders by rifle/year, and we reduced it by an average of 1-10, could that not be 50-500 preventable murders by a rifle?

And lets say they want to do it through other means, assault rifle control is not the only method of gun control that's being examined.

So what happens when otherwise law abiding citizens who acquired guns legally through the system via passing a background check decide to kill someone with a gun?

Then for your next round of legislation, you now have a database of gun owners.

[David88vert]

Possibly, but then they'd have one less channel to acquire a gun through

Maybe 1 in GA, maybe 10. But if we're talking about a federal bill, does that not include all 50 states? If there's an average of 10-15 murders by rifle/year, and we reduced it by an average of 1-10, could that not be 50-500 preventable murders by a rifle?

And lets say they want to do it through other means, assault rifle control is not the only method of gun control that's being examined.

Total in the US by rifle, including DC and the VI, averages just over 300 per year for ALL rifles (not just assault style rifles), so it's highly unlikely that you will save many. If someone wants someone dead, their first choice of weapon is not as assault-style rifle. The FBI statistics are very clear on this.
Feinstein's bill targets just these rifles - the least likely weapons to be used to commit murder. it does not cover handguns, knives, baseball bats, etc.

[.blank cd]

So what happens when otherwise law abiding citizens who acquired guns legally through the system via passing a background check decide to kill someone with a gun?

I'm pretty sure there's already a law in place that everyone agrees with for this scenario.

[David88vert]

So if you're a republican against gun control for whatever reason, and she holds firm to this bill, and it looks like its gaining some traction, are you more or less likely to say "well, hey, lets talk about this, maybe we can look into doing another 10 year run..."

Grown men know the answer.

No, Republicans will stand on their party lines and nothing will get done. The 112th Congress has been the most ineffectual Congress since the 1940s, what makes you think it will change for this one bill, which is highly partisan?

Again, you play word games, like a child.... Grow a pair, speak your mind, and stick to your.... oh wait, you don't have any, Feinstein already got yours.....

[David88vert]

I'm pretty sure there's already a law in place that everyone agrees with for this scenario.

But it could be prevented if we just banned all guns, right?

[.blank cd]

No, Republicans will stand on their party lines and nothing will get done. The 112th Congress has been the most ineffectual Congress since the 1940s, what makes you think it will change for this one bill, which is highly partisan?

Wasn't a yes or no question. More likely or less likely to compromise?

Again, you play word games, like a child.... Grow a pair, speak your mind, and stick to your.... oh wait, you don't have any, Feinstein already got yours.....

Feinstein has nothing of mine of value. I haven't offered an opinion either way, whether I agree with an assault weapon restriction or not.


Money. The answer is money.

[David88vert]

Wasn't a yes or no question. More likely or less likely to compromise?

Feinstein has nothing of mine of value. I haven't offered an opinion either way, whether I agree with an assault weapon restriction or not.


Money. The answer is money.

You want to know how this will play out? I'll explain the compromises being made right now, and how I predict it will end.

The new Toomey/Manchin language on background checks will replace the current language, and we will hear about a bi-partisan compromise.
Harry Reid will call for a cloture vote on the bill with the new language. he'll get just enough votes for it.
Reid will then bring up Feinstein's ban on the assault style weapons, and on the high capacity magazines, as amendments with the background check language.
The amendments on the assault style weapons and magazines will fail to pass the votes, allowing Republicans and moderate Dems in gun-friendly states to go home and say that they voted against gun control - and thus, keep their seats in the Senate later. Reid has already planned this.
Finally, Reid will bring the background check language to the floor for a vote. This is to put Senate Republicans that are strongly against the bill in a tough position. It's all political posturing.
Reid will need to get 5 Republicans to side with him, so expect debate. If it passes, it will be by a very thin margin.
Then it heads to the House, and the House Republicans will kill it, thus, wasting our time.

That's your compromise.
Write it down, see how it plays out.

[Sinfix_15]

Florida fourth graders allegedly told to write down desire to give up constitutional rights

[Apex1972]

Almost every car crash fatality happens with a licensed driver. We dont need cars capable of inflicting the carnage that they do. We dont need cars that go the speeds that they go. I understand that racing is part of our history and something that you enjoy..... but race cars are dangerous. With these cars being made available to the public there's no way of keeping them away from people who intend to abuse them. If 1 life can be saved, then it needs to be done.

This thread makes no fucking sense. And to the OP, this actually sounds like the kind of thing Obama WOULD support. kinda seems contradicting that you would post something like this as an anti-Obama person you claim to be.

[Echonova]

This thread makes no fucking sense. And to the OP, this actually sounds like the kind of thing Obama WOULD support. kinda seems contradicting that you would post something like this as an anti-Obama person you claim to be.

Pretty sure that's the point. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms... Not to drive. One of these things kills far more people than the other each year, but nobody ever says a word about banning them... Why?


Convenience. No other reason.


Keep the cattle happy and they will walk to the slaughter house.



~insert trollface.jpg~

[bu villain]

Get Congress and Obama to cut their spending in half and you might be able to find a few dollars for a study. Good luck with that.
The Democrats might try to use guns on you if you try to take away tax revenue from them....

The topic of our overall budget is really another topic. Let's not get into it here. The suggestion is a tiny sum compared to the current budget (or even half the budget as you propose) so it's hardly a significant reason not to do it.

Guns, homes, and cars are all private property, and individual sales of legal private property is generally outside of the scope of the federal government.
in your scenario, the buyer is asking the local authorities to help him protect himself by checking into the validity of an item, not a person's history. In the scenario of selling a firearm, the seller would be asking the police to research a the buyer's history. Big difference.
Even FFL dealers don't get history on their buyers. They simply get an approval or rejection on the applicant.

The only possible way that a regulation of private sales would work, is if all sales were conducted at FFL dealers, and all FFL dealers were either compensated for their time, or were forced to provide the service at their own cost (time is money).
There would still be plenty of people who would sell outside the system though.

So why can't private individuals get a rejection or approval similar to dealers. I understand the system isn't set up that way right now but why would it be so hard to have private citizens run a similar check with the help of local LEOs? Of course some people would sell outside the system but I don't see how that is particularly relevant. If a law exists, someone probably has broken it. It doesn't diminish the value of having a law.

[bu villain]

Pretty sure that's the point. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms... Not to drive. One of these things kills far more people than the other each year, but nobody ever says a word about banning them... Why?

Convenience. No other reason.

Keep the cattle happy and they will walk to the slaughter house.

Acutally I don't think it is convenience per se. It is perceived value. Just about everyone agrees cars provide immense value compared to their danger to our society. There is not a similar agreement to the value of guns in our society.

[.blank cd]

Pretty sure that's the point. We have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms... Not to drive. One of these things kills far more people than the other each year, but nobody ever says a word about banning them... Why?


Convenience. No other reason.


Keep the cattle happy and they will walk to the slaughter house.

Because something is already being done about death from vehicle accidents.

[Echonova]

If we can save just one life... Changing the laws will be worth it.

[Echonova]

How many people died from horse and buggy accidents last year? Exactly.



Nobody is wanting to deny you transportation... Just take a safer and more responsible approach to it.

[.blank cd]

How many people died from horse and buggy accidents last year? Exactly.



Nobody is wanting to deny you transportation... Just take a safer and more responsible approach to it.

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

[Echonova]

It's for the greater good. Think of how much smaller your carbon footprint will be. We can stop deaths and global warming at the same time.























At the same damn time.




































At the same damn time.

[Echonova]

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

I never claimed they were.

[Echonova]

BRB.


Ran out of bourbon. Gotta drive to the store.

[David88vert]

The topic of our overall budget is really another topic. Let's not get into it here. The suggestion is a tiny sum compared to the current budget (or even half the budget as you propose) so it's hardly a significant reason not to do it.



So why can't private individuals get a rejection or approval similar to dealers. I understand the system isn't set up that way right now but why would it be so hard to have private citizens run a similar check with the help of local LEOs? Of course some people would sell outside the system but I don't see how that is particularly relevant. If a law exists, someone probably has broken it. It doesn't diminish the value of having a law.

The budget is relevant. It's relevant every time that you want to spend money.
Every time that government takes tax more tax money for projects, the government is proclaiming that individuals do not know how to spend their money correctly and efficiently, and that the government agencies can do so better. For large infrastructure projects, that is true, of course, but not for projects that will only directly affect a small portion of the population. You have to address the needs of the many, before you address the needs of a few individuals. A study that can be done without the government's involvement should be done without the government's involvement.
The whole "it's not much money thing" is what has us spending a deficit amount each year. Pork barrel spending, projects that only benefit a few select individuals, etc, should not fall under the federal budget without extreme scrutiny prior to approval, and we don't see that level of accountability with Congress.

The current background check system is setup for FFL dealers - not for mass checks from many individuals. Do you realize the size of the databases needed to handle that many private gun sales? Do you understand what it takes just to setup the environment for a project like that? I do - I design enterprise applications that deal with large numbers of customers. As for going to LEOs and having them do it, how do you plan to have LEOs do their current jobs, as they are pretty overworked in many areas lately, and you are talking about giving them a LOT more work. You would need to have every law enforcement agency hire a lot more officers just to handle this work. Don't believe it? Well, here are the numbers to consider.
The figures show that there have been 16,808,538 applications in 2012 just up to the end of November - I don't have December numbers. Remember, these are just the applicants at FFL dealers - not private sales. The background check system that FFL dealers use has received 156,577,260 applications since 1998, up to Nov of 2012. Of those, rejections based upon "convicted of a crime" is responsible for 58.65% of the 976,255 denials under the FFL dealer background check system. Georgia alone had 386,562 applications between Jan 2012 and Nov 2012.
We will need either a robust automated background check system open to the public's use, or a lot more officers. Either will cost a lot of money - and that money has to come from somewhere - its not free.

And as to if it would work? The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale. The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check. Sellers who used Craigslist were most likely to violate the law, the report said.

Read more: Number Of Guns Sold In US Each Year - Business Insider


Now, I'm going to assume that you've been influenced by Bloomberg, Obama, and Biden's comments that 40% of gun purchases are private sales, as that seems to be the talking point out of the Democratic Party right now. Well, get ready .... it's not accurate, and is a completely made up number. Both Biden and Obama admitted that they didn't know.
Read up and learn the truth: FactCheck.org : Guns Acquired Without Background Checks

The truth is that we don't know how many private sales there are, and nothing you can do will force everyone to do a background check for a private sale. These guns are not listed in a national database, so you have no way to crosscheck to see if the person selling them should be, or the person buying them should be. Unless you pass a new Amendment repealing the Second Amendment, you will always have the issue that we currently have.

Passing a law just to pass a law is poor judgment on legislation.

[David88vert]

Acutally I don't think it is convenience per se. It is perceived value. Just about everyone agrees cars provide immense value compared to their danger to our society. There is not a similar agreement to the value of guns in our society.

I agree.
People that do not use something tend not to value it as highly as those that do.
Congress currently places a very low value on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[David88vert]

Because something is already being done about death from vehicle accidents.

Correct. Auto accident deaths are much lower than in the 1970s. The safety devices that have become mandatory were not passed though based upon emotions. A lot of research went into developing devices to improve safety, then legislated into being mandatory.
No one is suggesting new safety features for guns, just a ban on making or importing the firearms that have the lowest numbers of murders.

[David88vert]

How many people died from horse and buggy accidents last year? Exactly.

Galveston police ID victims of fatal horse-drawn carriage accident - Houston Chronicle

[David88vert]

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

[.blank cd]

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

If Feinstein's ban literally meant the complete prohibition and abolishment of anything other than a handgun and a hunting rifle, and it somehow passed, does that mean she wants to take away the right to bear arms and thus the ability to defend yourself?

[David88vert]

If Feinstein's ban literally meant the complete prohibition and abolishment of anything other than a handgun and a hunting rifle, and it somehow passed, does that mean she wants to take away the right to bear arms and thus the ability to defend yourself?

I suggest you study up on what she said when she melted her own pistol. She made it very clear that she wishes to take away every firearm from every US citizen.

[bu villain]

The budget is relevant. It's relevant every time that you want to spend money.
Every time that government takes tax more tax money for projects, the government is proclaiming that individuals do not know how to spend their money correctly and efficiently, and that the government agencies can do so better. For large infrastructure projects, that is true, of course, but not for projects that will only directly affect a small portion of the population. You have to address the needs of the many, before you address the needs of a few individuals. A study that can be done without the government's involvement should be done without the government's involvement.
The whole "it's not much money thing" is what has us spending a deficit amount each year. Pork barrel spending, projects that only benefit a few select individuals, etc, should not fall under the federal budget without extreme scrutiny prior to approval, and we don't see that level of accountability with Congress.

First of all, I don't agree that government spending is based on them knowing how to spend the money better than individuals. I think it is based on spending that is either too big to be performed by individuals (e.g., infrastructure) or that market forces do not value often due to unknown ROI (e.g., studies of this nature or common goods that do not have a direct way to extract monetary profits). If the private sector was already performing lots of studies on gun violence then I would see no need for the government to incentivize it with funding but the fact is we don't have a lot of information on the causes and effects of gun violence so how are we to legislate (or not) when the information to make such decisions is so lacking? There has been active lobbying against such studies because those who make money off weapons are afraid what the conclusions might be. Of course I wouldn't recommend a defense sized budget for such studies but what I am trying to get across is that we should decide what value is being provided by such studies first before we start arguing about the cost. One step at a time.

The current background check system is setup for FFL dealers - not for mass checks from many individuals. Do you realize the size of the databases needed to handle that many private gun sales? Do you understand what it takes just to setup the environment for a project like that?...

I think you make a good point on how many transactions there are so that would be a big burden on LEOs and I concede you know more about FFL dealer system than I do. However, I do not accept that just because the current environment does not easily translate into private sales checks that it is a technologically unfeasible. We don't need a database that records all transactions, all it needs to do is basically be a black list of names similar to a no-fly list. It could have a simple webpage interface where you put in some basic info and it gives a thumbs up or thumbs down. We can argue about whether the seller should do it, a LEO, or a gun store for a fee but that's secondary until we can agree on the general idea. No, it would not stop all sales to felons but it could be a tool to stop citizens from inadvertently selling guns to criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, I'm going to assume that you've been influenced by Bloomberg, Obama, and Biden's comments that 40% of gun purchases are private sales, as that seems to be the talking point out of the Democratic Party right now....

Why would you assume that? Private sales are not tracked, so how could you tally them? Seems obvious to me that the 40% number is at best a guess.

[Sinfix_15]

And nobody is wanting to deny you the right to bear arms either

[Sinfix_15]

If Feinstein's ban literally meant the complete prohibition and abolishment of anything other than a handgun and a hunting rifle, and it somehow passed, does that mean she wants to take away the right to bear arms and thus the ability to defend yourself?

So i should accept this bill because it leaves me with a pistol, but takes away the "arms" that would be used to prevent them from coming back for said pistol?

Democrats wont stop until guns are gone. Every measure, however large or small, is just a step towards their final goal.

If it was about safety.... they wouldnt be coming after "assault rifles"........ the least used gun in criminal activity but the most effective gun at resisting tyranny. Yeah, these politicians are thinking about safety...... their own safety.

I dont trust a government who doesnt trust me with a gun. Molon Labe

[.blank cd]

Is someone wanting to deny you the right to bear arms?

[Sinfix_15]

Is someone wanting to deny you the right to bear arms?

Yeah, a majority of the democratic party, the UN, the liberal media and blue states.

Almost forgot..... King Obama.

[bu villain]

Democrats wont stop until guns are gone. Every measure, however large or small, is just a step towards their final goal.

Please stop with the gross over generalizations. It really doesn't help the debate at all. Does Diane Feinstein want to get rid of all guns? Sure. But that doesn't mean all democrats do.

[.blank cd]

So i should accept this bill because it leaves me with a pistol, but takes away the "arms" that would be used to prevent them from coming back for said pistol?

I'm confused. On one hand, people say assault weapons are no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, on the other hand, people are saying they're essential for suppressing a tyrannical government, which unquestionably requires a REALLY large amount of firepower. So are they or are they not more powerful than a rifle?

[Echonova]

Galveston police ID victims of fatal horse-drawn carriage accident - Houston Chronicle

Now compare those numbers vs auto accidents... You can even do it per capita if you would like.



On a side note: Why is bourbon so tasty? Laws should be passed to prevent the tragedy that just occurred from happening again.