Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ninjadude

Eight Smart Gun Bills Introduced On Day One

84 posts in this topic

Registration is the NECESSARY precursor to any scheme of confiscation. Registered guns give the authorities a database of where weapons can be seized.

Even if it is, I fail to see any attempt to seize weapons. Would they want to do it it would have already been done, register or not because it is hardly a secret who has got them. All that is not known is what weapon belongs to whom or where it ends up after a legal sale. And that has to change if anything should change at all.

Besides that they want to keep one of the last successful industries in the country alive: The gun makers. You will not see any change in that. And you will keep on seeing raising levels of paranoia so people keep on buying more guns and ammunition than they can reasonable use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as it gets chosen by majority, certainly not.

Especially if it is chosen by a mob. That still doesn’t limit that ultimate goal of a government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that why we have to register our cars?

Not quite but that is a reason. The main reason is to be able to track it. A person can get into a car and disappear. You can’t do that with a gun. You can visually track a car from a distance but before you can track a gun, it has to be in your possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially if it is chosen by a mob. That still doesn't limit that ultimate goal of a government.

I know, I know. We are all the mob out to get you.... with a butterfly net...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know. We are all the mob out to get you.... with a butterfly net...

You don’t quite get it do you? You don’t understand the dynamics or the implications of this process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite but that is a reason. The main reason is to be able to track it. A person can get into a car and disappear. You can't do that with a gun. You can visually track a car from a distance but before you can track a gun, it has to be in your possession.

Eh, it can be pretty easy to hide a car as well...

Couldn't the reason for registration of anything be just simply responsibility? You have your license (registration to drive) and it shows that you have learned a skill and been tested on it, if you break the rules you are held responsible. You own a car. It's registered. You get drunk and drive it through a park and then run away on foot, your registration allows responsibility to be placed.

Same with your kids, criminals, police, military, voting, etc. It's a way to hold an individual responsible for his/her ownership and actions.

Why can't gun owners be held to at least the same?

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't quite get it do you? You don't understand the dynamics or the implications of this process.

Evidently I don't, but I surely know that the only thing to replace a democracy with, or mob rule as you call it, is a dictatorship. So, imperfect as it may be I will continue to try to better a democratic society with democratic means. And the only way to do that is by argumentation and the ballot box. Not with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, it can be pretty easy to hide a car as well...

Couldn't the reason for registration of anything be just simply responsibility? You have your license (registration to drive) and it shows that you have learned a skill and been tested on it, if you break the rules you are held responsible. You own a car. It's registered. You get drunk and drive it through a park and then run away on foot, your registration allows responsibility to be placed.

Same with your kids, criminals, police, military, voting, etc. It's a way to hold an individual responsible for his/her ownership and actions.

Why can't gun owners be held to at least the same?

Nibs

Why can't knife owners? Who's for knife responsibility? Once they take our guns and guns are no longer a problem, 80% of murders will be by knife and some bleeding heart statist will then show up to tell us that our knives have to go. You'll need a Chef Card from the bureau to be able to sport a Chef's knife longer than 4" and sharper than a Ginsu, or some other such BS.

Meanwhile the military won't be held accountable for anything lest we create in our own heads that the results we get in the world come from the gummint. The paradoxical problem we've had in this country since our founding is that the federal government is a lousy arbiter of the federal government. That's our job, and I suggest we do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't knife owners? Who's for knife responsibility? Once they take our guns and guns are no longer a problem, 80% of murders will be by knife and some bleeding heart statist will then show up to tell us that our knives have to go. You'll need a Chef Card from the bureau to be able to sport a Chef's knife longer than 4" and sharper than a Ginsu, or some other such BS.

Meanwhile the military won't be held accountable for anything lest we create in our own heads that the results we get in the world come from the gummint. The paradoxical problem we've had in this country since our founding is that the federal government is a lousy arbiter of the federal government. That's our job, and I suggest we do it.

Did you ever hear of a knife-by crime where bystanders got killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ever hear of a knife-by crime where bystanders got killed?

Oh so long as it's who the murderer is aiming at, we're cool. So this is what matters today. So this is the standard of correctness you've been struggling for all these days you're showing no respect for the rights of others. Collateral damage. Why don't you apply your own standard of righteousness to government while you're at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh so long as it's who the murderer is aiming at, we're cool. So this is what matters today. So this is the standard of correctness you've been struggling for all these days you're showing no respect for the rights of others. Collateral damage. Why don't you apply your own standard of righteousness to government while you're at it.

What matters is that any brain weak idiot is capable of firing a machine gun in a crowd, but certainly not to wield a knife causing the same damage. Nobody will stop murderers from murdering, nobody will stop muggers from mugging. But what we can stop is unnecessary mass shootings, in fact most could have been stopped because the guns were not supposed to be in the hands of those who had them at the time, either because they should have been precluded due to mental health reasons or because they had acquired them illegally.

Have as many guns as you want, but if one of them ends up in the hands of somebody who should not have had it, and you are at fault, you should pay the price for the damage caused. And for that it has to be known who the legal owner of a gun is. And that is why we need a registry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Banning high-capacity ammunition. HR 138. This bill from Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) would ban anyone in the US from owning, buying, or trading high-capacity ammunition clips, like the kinds that are often used in mass shootings. Such clips allow a gunman to fire off as many as 100 rounds without stopping to reload. McCarthy’s connection to gun safety laws is personal: Her husband was killed and son critically injured during a mass shooting.

I'm not sure how I feel about this notion. Mostly because I have no idea on if it would even be vaguely helpful or possibly create a new black market item, or the law get really abused.

2. Closing the ‘gun show loophole.’ HR 141. Another measure from McCarthy requires that all gun purchasers undergo a full background check. As-is, the private sales of firearms, and the sale of guns at gun shows, are exempt from the background check requirements that are mandatory for other gun sales. That loophole is currently an easy way for criminals or the mentally ill to access a gun undetected.

I'm all good with this one- if you are promoting yourself as a public seller, you should have to go through all the same procedures, even if you are spread out on a table in an arena instead of behind a counter at a shop.

3. Making the database of who cannot buy guns effective. HR 137. Currently, states do a terrible job of entering names — of felons or the mentally ill — into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This measure also from McCarthy is called the Fix Gun Checks Act, and has been introduced in previous legislative sessions. It would create incentives and penalties to encourage the efficient entry of names into NICS. It would also close the gun show loophole.

Sure, wonderful idea... Good frigging luck with that. And passing a law to say hey, you should be better about your data entry is kind of absurd to me for some reason.

4. Regulating where and how ammunition is purchased. HR 142. McCarthy’s fourth and final bill would make it mandatory for all ammunition dealers to have a license to sell. It would also require anyone purchasing ammunition to do so in person, face-to-face with a seller. All bulk purchases of ammunition would need to be reported under McCarthy’s law. This bill responds to the criticisms that the internet is an open market for the unlimited sale of ammunition.

Honestly, I didn't know there wasn't any kind of license for selling ammo- I figured since there are restrictions on gun ownership, sellers of guns and ammo would have a permit to sell, um, controlled substances, just like smokes, booze, or fresh squeezed orange juice.

I'm not quite sure what bulk is, but it's not uncommon around here for a person to pick up several boxes of ammo at a time. Especially when it's pre-hunting season and everyone wants to do some target practice.

5. Requiring handguns to be registered. HR 117. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) crafted this national law based on his state’s requirements for handgun purchasing. It would require every single handgun sold in the United States to be licensed and registered, without any exceptions or loopholes, and for that registry to be easily accessible.

I'm not quite sure what registering handguns is supposed to do. A lot of the mass gun violence recently has been done with larger guns if I'm not mistaken. And I'm willing to bet there are more non-handgun firearms floating around than there are handguns. Not that I necessarily think every firearm has to be registered (if nothing else that project would be a PITA) but I don't get the point of requiring registering one kind of firearm. I kind of equate that to only having to register cars and all other vehicles on the road don't have to be.

6. Regulating how gun licenses are issued. HR 34. Like Holt, Rep. Bobby Rush’s (D-IL) bill aims to create a unified system of gun licensing procedures — for both handguns and semi-automatic weapons. Rush’s legislation, a reintroduction of “Blair’s Bill,” named after a murdered Chicago teen, would also require gun safety training for firearm owners.

I'm all good with firearm usage licensing. I equate it with drivers license, or possibly occupational licensing. Seriously, guns are dangerous, people should really have to show they can pass a safety and legal test. Gun licenses could have useful information on it, like all the crap needed to pass the background checks to purchase guns, the national database thing on that person, if the person knows how to or is permitted to have different kinds of guns, and so on.

7. Raising the age of legal handgun ownership to 21. HR 65. In a move that seems pointed toward combating youth street violence, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) proposed this bill that would make it illegal to own a handgun before the age of 21. Some states have such laws in place, but Jackson Lee’s measure would make the law national.

No. Hell no. I have a problem with the 21 thing in general. If you are legally responsible for everything you do, and can go shoot or be shot in the name of military service at 18, then you should be allowed all adult rights at 18. Kind of messed up if a 17 year old kid can sign up for a two year stint in the military, then get out and be on reserves and be told he can and has to handle a weapon on base, but everywhere civilian he isn't considered old enough to handle a firearm for a couple years yet.

And really, if this is supposed to be to combat youth street violence... I doubt any of those kids on the streets with handguns are the legal owners of the guns anyway, I fail to see what making a federal law about 21 would do about that.

8. Requiring the reporting of stolen guns. HR 21. This bill, which Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has introduced to Congress previously and is reintroducing to the new Congress, would also close the ‘gun show loophole’ by requiring all gun-owners to undergo background checks. Additionally, it would make sure that gun owners are required to report stolen guns — a measure that could help law enforcement track illegal guns.

Yeah, report stolen guns, I am all good with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What matters is that any brain weak idiot is capable of firing a machine gun in a crowd, but certainly not to wield a knife causing the same damage. Nobody will stop murderers from murdering, nobody will stop muggers from mugging. But what we can stop is unnecessary mass shootings, in fact most could have been stopped because the guns were not supposed to be in the hands of those who had them at the time, either because they should have been precluded due to mental health reasons or because they had acquired them illegally.

Have as many guns as you want, but if one of them ends up in the hands of somebody who should not have had it, and you are at fault, you should pay the price for the damage caused. And for that it has to be known who the legal owner of a gun is. And that is why we need a registry.

We have a registry, and there's no need to argue about it as nobody is creating an argument out of doing away with it. You're inventing straw now.

A "brain weak idiot" can't stab 26 little kids with a knife in 10 minutes? I bet he could do it in less than 2 minutes. Especially if we don't ban the furniture he used to barricade the door that made it possible.

If we're all about limiting damage now, let's limit the size and scope of government policy. Let's at least try to pretend better that collateral damage actually matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't knife owners? Who's for knife responsibility? Once they take our guns and guns are no longer a problem, 80% of murders will be by knife and some bleeding heart statist will then show up to tell us that our knives have to go. You'll need a Chef Card from the bureau to be able to sport a Chef's knife longer than 4" and sharper than a Ginsu, or some other such BS.

Meanwhile the military won't be held accountable for anything lest we create in our own heads that the results we get in the world come from the gummint. The paradoxical problem we've had in this country since our founding is that the federal government is a lousy arbiter of the federal government. That's our job, and I suggest we do it.

Huh? I haven't seen many mass murders by knife. Bad comparison. But since you bring it up if I knowingly give a mentally ill person a knife and that person goes and kills some one, yeah, I would be partially responsible. Just as responsible as if I give a two year old poison and he drinks it.

No one is coming for our guns. It's just a bunch of BS rhetoric. Fear mongering drama.

I'm speaking towards being personally responsible. If you opt to own a gun then you should be willing to shoulder any and all responsibility that goes with it and if you are then you have no issue registering it.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody will stop murderers from murdering surely, if they don't have the capability to point a gun at the "brain weak idiot" and put him out of his idiotic misery.

What a ridiculous presumption, that crime can't be prevented. The gun-free zones where murderers slaughter the helpless with impunity are what these sensationalized events the media can't shut up about have in common. It doesn't take handguns or assault rifles to murder large numbers of people very quickly. Someone should wake up and realize what a shotgun is capable of indoors. With one pull of my trigger, I've got 27 .22s coming at ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I haven't seen many mass murders by knife. Bad comparison. But since you bring it up if I knowingly give a mentally ill person a knife and that person goes and kills some one, yeah, I would be partially responsible. Just as responsible as if I give a two year old poison and he drinks it.

No one is coming for our guns. It's just a bunch of BS rhetoric. Fear mongering drama.

I'm speaking towards being personally responsible. If you opt to own a gun then you should be willing to shoulder any and all responsibility that goes with it and if you are then you have no issue registering it.

Nibs

So it's just the mass murderers we care about now? How much death as a percentage of total homicide is represented by mass murderers? Is that tiny percentage what really matters here now?

We don't register our cars to prevent mass murder; we do it to protect the ownership of private property with the awareness that accidents happen. Whether prince or pauper, with power comes responsibility.

What do you think bans on certain weapons are? They are coming for our guns. The real BS is that it's just rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's just the mass murderers we care about now? How much death as a percentage of total homicide is represented by mass murderers? Is that tiny percentage what really matters here now?

We don't register our cars to prevent mass murder; we do it to protect the ownership of private property with the awareness that accidents happen. Whether prince or pauper, with power comes responsibility.

What do you think bans on certain weapons are? They are coming for our guns. The real BS is that it's just rhetoric.

Right there (what I bolded and underlined) should end the argument all together. With power comes responsibility. Gun owners should be held responsible for the power they own.

Done.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right there (what I bolded and underlined) should end the argument all together. With power comes responsibility. Gun owners should be held responsible for the power they own.

Done.

Nibs

And the government and the criminals shouldn't have a monopoly on that power, which is the most nonsensical anti-American attitude being tossed around the water cooler lately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the government and the criminals shouldn't have a monopoly on that power, which is the most nonsensical anti-American attitude being tossed around the water cooler lately.

Crap being tossed around the water cooler is worth the paper it's written on.

Like I said, no one is coming to get our guns. What is being suggested in the OP are some not unreasonable rules to gun ownership. As a gun owner I don't understand the reluctance to registering them and being held responsible for crimes committed with them.

Nibs

*edit because an "e" fell off the post

Edited by HerNibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap being tossed around the water cooler is worth the paper it's written on.

Like I said, no one is coming to get our guns. What is being suggested in the OP are some not unreasonable rules to gun ownership. As a gun owner I don't understand the reluctance to registering them and being held responsible for crimes committed with them.

I'm not reluctant to register my guns. I register everything. The last thing I wouldn't register would be a gun. But Washington DC doesn't have diddly squat to do with that, nor should it.

But like you said incorrectly, or else what do you think bans on weapons are? That's coming for our guns.

You want to argue this consistently? Then go after B-52 bombers and Nimitz class fleet carriers and nuclear warheads on ICBMs and then come tell me about mass murder and collateral damage.

Edited by Yamato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes:

Man Slashes 22 Children With Knife In China

http://www.inquisitr...knife-in-china/

And there are probably more, they just aren't plastered on the TV by the MSM as gun crime is.

That was a purpose attack on the children, does not sound like they were bystanders but intended victims. Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a purpose attack on the children, does not sound like they were bystanders but intended victims. Try again.

Oh, so now what's important here is that it's not the intended victims who get murdered. It's just the 3rd degree murders and the accidents that must be legislated, still having nothing to do with preventing our sensational media-fed tragedies in gun free zones against defenseless children.

This is just more throwing crap on the wall. You change your justification every day if not every other post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, so now what's important here is that it's not the intended victims who get murdered. It's just the 3rd degree murders and the accidents that must be legislated, still having nothing to do with preventing our sensational media-fed tragedies in gun free zones against defenseless children.

This is just more throwing crap on the wall. You change your justification every day if not every other post.

I was just going to let his comment stand alone. It was far more effective with no further commenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that why we have to register our cars?

Nibs

No, it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.