The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

[FyredUp]

Why is that fascinating to you?

Because you made a nonsensical argument of stating that firearms manufacturers in the lawful pursuit of commerce manufacturing guns they sell to law abiding citizens that it is somehow the responsibility of both the firearms manufacturers and the law abiding citizens that criminals and mentally ill people use those firearms in the commission of a crime. It was pointed out to you by not only me but others here that that concept was ludicrous. That was why you left the topic.

I stated that I was done debating the issue with you. You speculated as to why I was doing that. So, I explained why that wasn't the case. You respond to that with another baseless accusation regarding my intent. So, I corrected you. I'm not debating the issue, I'm simply providing a rebuttal to your accusation and misinterpretation of my prior statements. Not sure why you'd find that fascinating.

I find you fascinating in the absolute ridiculousness of your position. If we eliminate manufacturers from making a specific gun then that gun will not fall into criminals hands because it won't be available for sale by law abiding citizens to criminals. Another frankly, insulting inference by you. You do realize there are more civilian semi-automatic versions of military looking rifles right? So even if you eliminate the AR from the civilian market other rifles will take its place. Further the fact is other types of fully automatic weapons will be smuggled into the country EXACTLY the same as they are today. The difference will be the market will have expanded and MORE illegal FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons will be placed in the hands of criminals.

Those reasons and more are why I find your fantasy land ideas from the anti-gun side fascinating.

[scfire86]

Hey SC, let me save you the effort of finding the difference between Goerge Bush's Wide Receiver program and Obama's Fast and Furious. Because you tried to say they were the same and in fact they weren't.

I never said they were exactly the same. Once again you draw an incorrect conclusion based upon what you want to see versus what is written.

Keep it coming, I laugh at you every time you post.

Same here. It's obvious you're not very good at debate.

[scfire86]

Another racial comment. I stated in post 212 that would be coming and here it is in post 231.

How is pointing out that our nation's Founders owned slaves a racial comment? Do you deny that isn't true?

You should read up on the lives of our Founding Fathers. It's a fascinating topic.

[scfire86]

Please state exactly what you DO advocate so that there can be no doubt. That should effectly end the tennis court volleying that is only wasting bandwidth. Currently, "assault style" rifles and hi-cap magazines are legal in the USA. Or are you throwing a curve ball and speaking of certain states that have banned them?

I've advocated limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and the elimination of the secondary gun market.

That has been my position from the start and it hasn't changed.

[scfire86]

Their role is different, it's been ruled that they have no responsibility to the individual, only society as a whole.
That's leaves it up to the average citizen. In my home, the responsibility is mine. With that in mind, I should at minimum have the ability to own magazines with at least the capacity law enforcement deems necessary for their safety and ability to do their job.

I would agree with you when the day comes that individuals are wanting to do violence to you solely because you put on a uniform and a badge.

All of those with differing opinions from line have stipulated that changing magazines is not an issue given that amount of time needed.

[voyager9]

I've advocated limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds and the elimination of the secondary gun market.

That has been my position from the start and it hasn't changed.

Why 10? What data brought you to the conclusion that it is the right number?

Similarly, what is your definition of "secondary gun market".

[FyredUp]

I never said they were exactly the same. Once again you draw an incorrect conclusion based upon what you want to see versus what is written.

Actually you said Bush did the same thing...


Same here. It's obvious you're not very good at debate.

In your mind probably not since I have pounded your BS with facts and I backed them up. That isn't your style at all now is it?

More smiles at your expense...

[FyredUp]

Hm, innocent civilians murdered with the assistance of the Obama administration.

[scfire86]

Similarly, what is your definition of "secondary gun market".

Gun shows that don't require a waiting period for a transaction involving firearms.

My data is based upon the same data you have that makes you believe you will be safer with a magazine that holds more.

[scfire86]

Hm, innocent civilians murdered with the assistance of the Obama administration.

Lol. Please proceed with that logic. Especially given the innocent civilians killed in Iraq with the assistance of the Bush Administration.

More smiles at your expense...

[Chenzo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkl0g...pQJV34N99ZbhzQ

This will be dismissed by SC per his norm. But this is exactly the thing you can expect to see if magazine limits are implemented.

[Chenzo]

Here's some more. Well worth the watch.

How to stop mass shootings: (And the glorification of shooters by the media)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7...pQJV34N99ZbhzQ

High capacity magazine ban for what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiV...pQJV34N99ZbhzQ

The privilege of being anti-gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdkiL...pQJV34N99ZbhzQ

Gun Free Zones Don't Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0BkN...pQJV34N99ZbhzQ

All of these points have been made, but I figured they would be easier for SC to understand with moving pictures and someone talking to him.

[FyredUp]

Gun shows that don't require a waiting period for a transaction involving firearms.

I don't know every states specific laws on this, but in Wisconsin there is NO waiting period for the purchase of rifles or shotguns. If a handgun is bought through a gun dealer, even at a gun show, there is still a 48 hour waiting period.

The no waiting period or background checks affects private sales where no dealer is involved. I proposed a solution to this way back in this discussion but I will state it again here for you. Make ALL gun show sales require a background check by an FFL firearms dealer. Even if it is a private sale. This could be accomplished by an FFL station by the door, either funded by the gun show or by each individual buying a gun. The waiting period would apply to private sales done at a gun show. The FFL Dealer would be responsible for shipping firearms after the waiting period.

My data is based upon the same data you have that makes you believe you will be safer with a magazine that holds more.

If you say so...

So once again you only had part of the information...

[FyredUp]

Lol. Please proceed with that logic. Especially given the innocent civilians killed in Iraq with the assistance of the Bush Administration.

And even more innocent civilians are killed in Afghanistan everyday with drones under Obama...Funny how that seems to never make the news.




Keep drinking the Kool Aid and blaming it all on Bush. Who, unless you know something I don't, hasn't been the President for over 4 years.

Keep smiling...it's easier than actually knowing anything about this topic.

[voyager9]

Gun shows that don't require a waiting period for a transaction involving firearms.

Requiring a waiting period is not the same thing as 'eliminating' the secondary market which you mentioned earlier. Similarly not all secondary transactions occur at gun shows. If that is your focus then you should say so. I believe "Gun show loophole" is the correct buzzword on the list of Democratic talking points.

My data is based upon the same data you have that makes you believe you will be safer with a magazine that holds more.

Please answer my question. Why 10?

[scfire86]

Keep smiling...it's easier than actually knowing anything about this topic.

I am smiling. Laughing actually. First off, I'm impressed of the sudden wave of humanitarianism that now envelopes conservatives.

Secondly, I'm amused at your quest to deflect the topic away from what you perceive as gun control given that you supplied the ammo (no pun intended) to shoot down (no pun intended again) your own argument.

[scfire86]

Requiring a waiting period is not the same thing as 'eliminating' the secondary market which you mentioned earlier. Similarly not all secondary transactions occur at gun shows. If that is your focus then you should say so. I believe "Gun show loophole" is the correct buzzword on the list of Democratic talking points.

Then eliminate all secondary market transactions.

Please answer my question. Why 10?

I already did. I used the same data that convinces you that more than 10 would make you safer.

[SPFDRum]

How is pointing out that our nation's Founders owned slaves a racial comment? Do you deny that isn't true?
As it adds nothing relative our pertinent to the ongoing debate. It smacks nothing more of desperation and a very mundane attempt at discrediting some of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Amendments. Especially when it comes to the 2nd. As far as denying it, you should reread my response to you concerning my signature quote. Again, to put a modern era spin on a practice that was acceptable back then is really a tactic of the uneducated.
You should read up on the lives of our Founding Fathers. It's a fascinating topic.

It is very fascinating. It was their collective experiences of tyranny that allow us the guaranteed freedoms we enjoy now. But to judge them now, with today's mindset, especially concerning slavery, a common practice, is insulting .
Martin Luther Ling JR. was a known adulterer and plagiarized parts of his doctoral dissertation, does that at anyway diminish his view or words?

[voyager9]

I don't know every states specific laws on this, but in Wisconsin there is NO waiting period for the purchase of rifles or shotguns. If a handgun is bought through a gun dealer, even at a gun show, there is still a 48 hour waiting period.

The no waiting period or background checks affects private sales where no dealer is involved. I proposed a solution to this way back in this discussion but I will state it again here for you. Make ALL gun show sales require a background check by an FFL firearms dealer. Even if it is a private sale. This could be accomplished by an FFL station by the door, either funded by the gun show or by each individual buying a gun. The waiting period would apply to private sales done at a gun show. The FFL Dealer would be responsible for shipping firearms after the waiting period.

NJ does not require a waiting period for handguns or long guns.. at least not one at the point of sale. We do have to have a valid Firearms Purchaser ID card (FPID) to buy any firearm. In addition to purchas a handgun you need to get a Permit to Purchase (P2P) for every handgun. The process to get the above requires background checks, references..etc and takes several months to complete. My point: While we don't have POS waiting period, we have to wait just to get permission to shop.

NJ also does not have any gun shows.. but it does have a "secondary market".. the only difference between the primary and secondary market here is that a FFL would do a NCIS at point of sale whereas individuals don't have access to that. All permits and paperwork is still required, and a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) form is required that documents that the correct forms were presented at the time of sale.

Also, it is currently illegal for me to purchase a firearm from an individual who resides in another state. Any purchase that cross state lines MUST go through an FFL.


I think the topic of background checks is one area where there should be middle ground. I don't have a problem with the checks being required for all sales, again to verify that the purchaser is not prohibited from owning a firearm. I think the devil is in the details, however.

I'm not sure a FFL should always be required as that adds additional time and money and makes Face to Face sales much more complicated. The approach NJ has taken, where the COE forms are required, seems to satisfy most of the concerns.

Requiring an actual NCIS check at point of sale could be acceptable if done in the right way. The biggest stumbling block seems to be how do you open up that system to individuals without significant abuse? If NCIS is open to all individuals, what's to keep someone from calling and getting the background info on anyone? The other concern is that some equate background checks with firearms registration, which is a no-go for many in that it could be abused (look at the NY Paper for examples).

[SPFDRum]

I would agree with you when the day comes that individuals are wanting to do violence to you solely because you put on a uniform and a badge.

All of those with differing opinions from line have stipulated that changing magazines is not an issue given that amount of time needed.

No, but this fact sheet shows they want to violence to me and others just for the sake of violence. Happens way more then any peace officer is targeted.
http://www.lockjawsecurity.com/pdf/L...gFactSheet.pdf