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 1
ninjadude

Paranoia Feeding American Gun Culture

157 posts in this topic

I thought you followed the discussions here, but if you do not I will be happy to link to the pertinent articles again.

And yes, if the police can follow who gave fast Freddy the gun fast Freddy will have to commit his crimes with a baseball bat in the future because nobody would risk it.

Sounds ok but you're not dumb enough to believe the black market would ever disappear. That's a market that never crashes. Never has and never will. It's as old as commerce.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a background check on people who buy guns. We already have that in place and it works pretty well. But it is simply impossible to close every 'loophole' that would allow a criminal to get a gun without infringing on the rights of the people.

You have background checks performed when a dealer sells to a buyer, but not when it involves a private seller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds ok but you're not dumb enough to believe the black market would ever disappear. That's a market that never crashes. Never has and never will. It's as old as commerce.

It seems to me that if guns are abundant (because with a supply as is they are abundant) it is cheap, taking a big portion out of the market would drive prices up, and driving the prices up will make guns scarce making a $100 dollar liquor store holdup unproductive. No, the black market will not disappear, but if it gets like in certain very restrictive countries where a illegal Makarov would cost 1500-2000 bucks ( store value about $300) it would at least take it out of the hands of petty criminals. And yes, in those countries there are also plenty legal guns. Just that you are held responsible for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, where did the number 16,000 come from and how is that valid at all? You could just as easily say 32,000...

Secondly, you are saying that I can't sell my neighbor across the street whom I have known for five years and is a retired marine and well known member of the community, my 357 without first making him fill out all the paper work necessary for the FBI to fully check him out. That assumes every single one of the 'people' is a criminal. That is infringement enough right there. Do I even need to mention Fast and Furious here? No, I do not. And so...okay, let's make private individuals do background checks on their neighbors....do you think that is going to stop Fast Freddy from getting a gun when he gets out of prison? Do you really think all the gang members are going to care about that law? No. So again, you are infringing on the rights of the people and the criminals are still out there possessing guns.

Why does it assume that everyone is criminal? When you buy from a store they do a background check, and you have no problem with that.

You may know your neighbor quite well and you could be right that he is not a criminal. What of the next guy though? The next private buyer who wants to buy from a private seller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For whatever it's worth, I'm all about private sales needing to perform a background check, but I am still against a registry. With that said, the FBI or ATF would need a centralized database of felons, and I would say they need to provide a free way for someone to run a background check. Problem is, that won't happen, they will charge for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neighbor to neighbor background checks don't seem so bad except it shouldn't be the sellers responsibility to perform the check. The buyer should have it done himself and present legal notarized papers to be copied and signed by both parties. That way the seller is covered and any fraudulent actions will lye on the buyer. Anyways, there is a process when privately selling guns to people. In PA I believe a registered gun can only be transferred or gifted to immediate family members and private sales are to take place at an authorized gun store where proper registration can take place. So there are already many laws on the books. Enforcement may be an issue and criminals will always be negligent of any law. So how again does adding more law solve those two issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with the Constitution which guarantees Americans the right to possess and bear arms.

No problem. You can have all the flint-locks that you can carry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, you are saying that I can't sell my neighbor across the street whom I have known for five years and is a retired marine and well known member of the community, my 357 without first making him fill out all the paper work necessary

yep pretty much the same thing if you sell a car. You have to fill out paper - by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. You can have all the flint-locks that you can carry.

You start this thread as flame bait. It worked and I accept that. But really man, all these posts and all this conversation and you pick the smallest things to make the smallest quip. How about some adding substance to this subject you're so passionate about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the right shall not be infringed.

Telling people what arms they can and cannot bear infringes that right. Passing laws restricting in anyway the arms that people may bear is an infringement.

possibly but it does not matter. Those amendments are not unlimited. Nearly all of them have been "infringed". And for good reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. You can have all the flint-locks that you can carry.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally vague, or intentionally sarcastic.

Because I'm pretty sure people don't own flint-locks besides gun collectors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally vague, or intentionally sarcastic.

Because I'm pretty sure people don't own flint-locks besides gun collectors.

The 2nd amendment was about "arms". Arms in the 18th century were flint locks. The founding fathers didn't say anything about automatic weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Automatic weapons are arms and nearly nobody has them. They're incredibly expensive and hard to get. They costs hundreds of dollars in ammo for only a couple minutes of shooting. The only automatics you've heard about on the news would have been illegally obtained in the hands of criminals and yet are still rare. AR15's aren't automatic. The assault rifles your spewing about aren't either and in fact aren't assault rifles. Assault rifles are military issue only. AR 15's are small caliber, the shoot only as fast as a pistol could and look scarier than they actually are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Fess, an AR15 is indeed an assault rifle. It is the same calibre of round as the military issues m16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Fess, an AR15 is indeed an assault rifle. It is the same calibre of round as the military issues m16.

Nope, just a scary looking rifle. That's all. AR doesn't stand for assault rifle. Assault rifles are specifically defined as military issue and automatic. Edit: they are selective fire. They can switch from semi to auto.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals highjacked the term for political reasons. It sounds scary and is therefore easier to demonize.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", "storm" as in "military attack"). The name was coined by Adolf Hitler[3] as a new name for the Maschinenpistole 43,[nb 1] subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first assault rifle that served to popularise the concept and form the basis for today's modern assault rifles.

The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[4][5][6]

It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);

It must be capable of selective fire;

It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;

Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.

And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 (on which the M16 rifle is based) that share parts or design characteristics with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."[7]

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

In the United States "assault weapons" are usually defined in legislation as semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military firearms, including assault rifles. Some definitions in "assault weapon" legislation under consideration (in 2013) are much broader to the point of including the majority of firearms, e.g. to include all semi-automatic firearms or all firearms with detachable magazines. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:

a folding or telescoping stock

a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon

a bayonet mount

a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor

a grenade launcher

The assault weapons ban did not further restrict weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns, which have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement or SOT (special occupational taxpayer) dealers.[8]

In more casual usage, the term "assault weapon" is sometimes conflated with the term assault rifle. The use of the term "assault weapon" is also highly controversial, as critics assert that the term is a media invention,[9] or a term that is intended to cause confusion among the public by intentionally misleading the public to believe that assault weapons (as defined in legislation) are full automatic firearms when they are not.[10]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd amendment was about "arms". Arms in the 18th century were flint locks. The founding fathers didn't say anything about automatic weapons.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

Silly Washington then.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, just a scary looking rifle. That's all. AR doesn't stand for assault rifle. Assault rifles are specifically defined as military issue and automatic. Edit: they are selective fire. They can switch from semi to auto.

I suppose you're right if that's the commercial definition in the US. Over here, we call rifles such as the AR15 and other similarly functioning rifles to be assaukt rifles. Automatic weapons are prohibited in Canada so that may be why we call then assaukt rifles commonly, because it's already understood that it doesn't have auto. Fair enough.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you're right if that's the commercial definition in the US. Over here, we call rifles such as the AR15 and other similarly functioning rifles to be assaukt rifles. Automatic weapons are prohibited in Canada so that may be why we call then assaukt rifles commonly, because it's already understood that it doesn't have auto. Fair enough.

Very well. The last paragraphs of each of the two wiki posts above pretty much sum up the [intended] confusion. Goodnight.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd amendment was about "arms". Arms in the 18th century were flint locks. The founding fathers didn't say anything about automatic weapons.

Nor did they say anything about not keeping up with the Jone's

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

Silly Washington then.

Washington forced the British out of Boston using empty cannons, the British didn't know that, but Washington had the wisdom to know that it was more important to make the enemy think you have 20 rounds than to think you have 10 or none at all. A real Commander-in-Chief would know that if you want security, its better to project strength than to project sappy photo-ops of kids to announce you are a lamb waiting to be slaughtered.

Edited by Order66
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you followed the discussions here, but if you do not I will be happy to link to the pertinent articles again.

And yes, if the police can follow who gave fast Freddy the gun fast Freddy will have to commit his crimes with a baseball bat in the future because nobody would risk it.

I don't need to follow links that pull numbers out of hats. ?mark, there is no way anyone can know numbers like that...its just sidetracking the logic of the argument. The Argument is that neither you, nor I, nor the Police, nor any Legislated Gun Laws, can keep Fast Freddy from getting a gun. The reason is that all Fast Freddy has to do is say, Hey Bro...I need a gun. And Bro gets him one on the Black Market. There are millions of guns out there and lots of them are already arming gangs. The Bloods, The Crypts, and a host of Gang Names I have no clue what they are.

So, if you cannot keep Fast Freddy from getting a gun if he really wants one...what the hell good does it do to pass a law that says I have to do a Background Check on my friends to sell them a gun? It's a ludicrous argument at best.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd amendment was about "arms". Arms in the 18th century were flint locks. The founding fathers didn't say anything about automatic weapons.

They didn't say anything about Flint Locks either. They said arms. Do you think the Founders were stupid? They were brilliant NinjaDude...they did the hard work no one today wants to do. What is that hard work you ask? Think things through! That's what.

You have to understand the IDEA. The IDEA is that if the population is armed...it will be very hard for any Government to force them into Tyrannical Control. Get it?

1 person likes this

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.