How can we regulate guns ... ?

Ironically, that is not a real response to what NoNukes posted.

So by the presented definition, an AK-47 or AR-15 capable of semi-automatic, but not automatic fire is not an assault rifle. Fine. Let's call it an assault weapon. Glad we cleared that up.

quote:

---

Exempt from the instant check are licensed dealers, manufacturers, importers, collectors, persons with a concealed carrying license, law enforcement, correctional and correctional probation officers.

---

Are you suggesting that there is no gun show loop hole?
Who isn't a gun collector? What about sales by private owners?Fact is that gun shows are a primary way, if not the primary source for illegal guns. Some counties in Florida do have laws applying to sales at gun shows. 33 three states have no laws at all.Gun shows face restrictions after Newtown shooting, as planners seek 'fair' treatment | Fox News

quote:

---

three of the weapons used in the Columbine attack were bought by someone who went to a gun show that didn't require a background check.

---

I answered the question that was asked. Perhaps the question was irrelevant. The laws are not universal and the result is a loop hole that allows people to obtain guns without background checks. Unless you are arguing that the loop hole does not exist, then I have no idea what your point is.

Yes it is. I don't believe in standing on a man's neck. Jon conceded the point.

You get suspended for responding a "No response, please" message from admin, and return to do the same thing again. Amazing...I hope you and Percy can work something out. I sympathize with your wish for fair and equal treatment, but some things do need to change on your side.

Hi Crashfrog,You have again responded to a message that requested no replies, so I'm suspending you again, this time for 48 hours.You are being held to the same standards as everyone else, the relevant rules are 1 and 10 from the Forum Guidelines:

1. Please follow all moderator requests. Concerns about moderation should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here thread.
   ​
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

I abbreviated rule 10 a while back in the interest of keeping things simple, it used to also say, "Avoid hectoring and badgering," or something along those lines.I intended the prohibition against referring to other participants more as something that would help you stay out of trouble. You have a strong tendency toward brinksmanship, I didn't want you to be tempted to see how close you could get to the line without going over. If you think you can refer to other participants without becoming gradually more and more personal and hectoring than go ahead and give it a try.Moderators prefer that the members understand the reasons for moderator actions, but you've worn out this consideration. The final straw was last year when moderators attempted to take seriously your complaints about people lying about you and ganging up on you, and in the end you began abusing the moderators, too.Please, no replies to this message.

Hi Crash - you were responding to me so I feel partly to blame. If you can put all this nonsense aside, i'd like you back and scrapping.Oh fuck, too late.....Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I don't think so. Many advocates want buying guns to be like buying butter. AZPaul3's message seems to describe things fairly well.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This thread is about how we can regulate guns.
If the gun advocate's answer is "We shouldn't." then it seems they are ok with convicted criminals and mentally disturbed people also being able to buy guns as easily as they buy butter.
Is that what most gun advocates think or is it a minority view?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Why shouldn't convicted criminals be allowed to purchase guns?What level of 'mental disturbance' should disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm? Who determines whether there is 'mental disturbance'?And how far can you go on these restrictions while still not infringing?Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I personally think the "felons cannot buy, legally own or even be in the same household as, firearms" law ought to be modified a bit so that all felons aren't lumped in the same category. As it stands right now someone who is convicted of grand theft (a non violent crime) loses the same rights as someone convicted of murder. At the very least, perhaps non violent offenders ought to still be allowed to own, or even be around, firearms. I would start with those who have at any point been committed and/or are prescribed narcotics or mood stabilizers. Doctors, obviously. It is obviously debatable about there coming a point where something you do, regardless if it is within your control or not, does begin to impact your rights. We cannot just allow mentally hampered individuals roam around doing as the voices in there head suggest if we expect any sort of safe society. Do they need help? Obviously. Do we need to work on how we help them? A million times, yes.

No, they don't want crooks to have guns.Many gun advocates seem willing to throw other people, and in fact other people's rights, under the bus as long as their own personal rights are not affected. Take away other peoples video games, violent movies, television programs, and their rights to own guns away as long as the gun advocate has unrestricted access. And "unrestricted" seems for some of the most extreme nuts to mean not even the most trivial inconvenience.The NRA promotes this "camel's nose" philosophy under which any type of gun control, however reasonable, is a step towards government confiscation of every gun from every citizen. My guess is that large number of gun owners buy into that philosophy.

There are limits to all of our constitutional rights. The "fire" in the theater and human sacrifice in religious rites, etc., kinds of things. And SCOTUS has many times ruled to limit criminals' privacy, association, speech and gun rights. Where there is an abuse of the social contract or an abuse of a "right" SCOTUS has consistently ruled to limit an abuser's rights.What is different in this proposal is that a good citizen would be required to "do something" in order to exercise a right the constitution says he/she already has. Government cannot require a good citizen to register with the state before attending church. It cannot require a good citizen to purchase a license to speak before the local Toastmasters Club.There is no issue in requiring a gun seller to perform a background check before selling you a gun since the limit being placed doesn't violate any of the seller's rights (no, the seller does not have a constitutionally protected right to sell you a gun.) However, there may be a very strong issue in requiring a good citizen to prove/license his own background before he is allowed to exercise a constitutional right he already possesses.I gave it a rather quick and dirty check and cannot find any SCOTUS ruling on this, but, given the history of the court, an individual constitutional right is (usually) given high deference where no abuse is alleged. A restriction on your constitutional rights just because some others do not like your having that right while you have done nothing wrong will not receive a pleasant walk through the courthouse.

All these conditions are dependent on someone being a "good citizen" / "have done nothing wrong".
The only way to ascertain if someone is a good citizen is to perform a background check.
And since background checks are already in place, it would appear that they do not breach any constitutional rights.
(I regret my initial use of the word 'licence' as it has connotations not relevant to my suggestion. I think "document showing gun-ownership eligibility" carries less baggage.) This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.Take these 2 scenarios:
1:
Customer: I would like a gun, please.
Seller: I will have to request a NICS background check before I can sell it to you.
2:
Customer: I would like a gun, please.
Seller: You will have to request a NICS background check before I can sell it to you.I see little difference. .But my suggestion doesn't prevent shops from performing background checks.
It simply allows people to present their own background checks if the shop is unable to do so (e.g. because it is at a gun show).It is a way to square the circle of "Background checks are required" and "Background checks can't always be performed".
And people without a "document showing gun-ownership eligibility" still have the right to buy a gun: they can go to a gun shop.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So you'd want a national registry of every person who had ever been prescribed narcotics or mood stabilizers? Sounds like a database ripe for abuse.