Those Damn Guns Again

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

Are you trying to revise very post you have made since you have been on this board?

Thought, the way you dismissed Ice-T shows what type of person you are. I've never dismissed anyone who came out of a lifestyle, and better their life. Of anything, I give it high praise. There's too many cats that don't get out that lifestyle because they are in too deep. I have kinfolks in the Pen because they didn't leave that shit alone. So, to hear you talking down on someone making it did piss me off. It should piss off more people on this board. You have no right to even think "uncle tom", and "actinanass" in the same sentence. Any political theory I have goes through the filter of "how can this make the black community stronger".

How many times have I said that businesses need an economic incentive to create jobs in our community?

How many times have I said "the reason we have no effective political power is because we put all our chips on one side"?

How many times have I said "we as black men need to learn about gun rights, and teach others"?

That's just a tip of the iceberg.

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

One
My "legitimacy" as a Black man isn't up for debate, neither is anyone else's and that includes blatant sellouts like Clarence Thomas and Allen West.

Two
As a longtime Ice-T fan, I don't have a problem with whatever his opinion is but let's not pretend Ice is one of the great social thinkers of our era. He's intelligent enough but his "last defense against tyranny" line is rhetorical nonsense full of the same old strawman arguments that get recklessly thrown around when people don't have reasonable points to make.

So, he's intelligent until he disagrees with your theory on gun control? I get it...

[QueEx]

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

So, he's intelligent until he disagrees with your theory on gun control? I get it...

I'm pretty clear with my words so you don't have to misinterpret them. I didn't say that at all.
He's intelligent enough but he said something stupid. He ventured off into something he clearly has no idea about and it was pretty obvious.
He doesn't even disagree with my stance on gun control. Like many, he talks in the same strawman garbage without really addressing reasonable gun and ammo limits.


And what happened to hershey1973?

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

I'm pretty clear with my words so you don't have to misinterpret them. I didn't say that at all.
He's intelligent enough but he said something stupid. He ventured off into something he clearly has no idea about and it was pretty obvious.
He doesn't even disagree with my stance on gun control. Like many, he talks in the same strawman garbage without really addressing reasonable gun and ammo limits.


And what happened to hershey1973?

Ok, lets say that we did what you want. Did gun limits. You actually believe that it's going to stop a horrible situation like Aurora?

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Ok, lets say that we did what you want. Did gun limits. You actually believe that it's going to stop a horrible situation like Aurora?

Yep.
The minute that assclown bought all the ammunition in such a short period of time, someone would be knocking on his door and something tells me he wouldn't be able to convince anyone that he was just an avid collector.

If we do what I want and make such high powered guns and ammo illegal to manufacture, sell, and import, you would still have maniacs killing people but they wouldn't kill as many people.

It's a classic strawman of "we can't prevent all killings so we shouldn't do anything". No one actually believes that because if we did murder and rape would be legal since we can't prevent murder and rape.

[GhostofMarcus]

Some Black Cartoons, I found.
Friday, August 24, 2007


Sunday, July 15, 2007


Tuesday, September 13, 2005

[GhostofMarcus]

I don't know the date of the stats but wow.

[thoughtone]

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Yep.
The minute that assclown bought all the ammunition in such a short period of time, someone would be knocking on his door and something tells me he wouldn't be able to convince anyone that he was just an avid collector.

If we do what I want and make such high powered guns and ammo illegal to manufacture, sell, and import, you would still have maniacs killing people but they wouldn't kill as many people.

It's a classic strawman of "we can't prevent all killings so we shouldn't do anything". No one actually believes that because if we did murder and rape would be legal since we can't prevent murder and rape.

So, you actually think that would prevent this type of random act of violence?

Think about this, when the assault gun ban was going on, how was it that I knew people in the hood with a shitload of assault rifles? *this is no strawman*

You only stop people from getting weapons/ammo legally.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

You only stop people from getting weapons/ammo legally.

Damn, you are thick!

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by actinanass

So, you actually think that would prevent this type of random act of violence?

Think about this, when the assault gun ban was going on, how was it that I knew people in the hood with a shitload of assault rifles? *this is no strawman*

You only stop people from getting weapons/ammo legally.

I'm going to have to assume you didn't read my post before you formulated your response so here's the pertinent part that if you had read it, you wouldnt have typed that

If we do what I want and make such high powered guns and ammo illegal to manufacture, sell, and import, you would still have maniacs killing people but they wouldn't kill as many people.

I'm for banning of the manufacture, sale, and import of such weaponry but they would still exist because no one is going to go around picking up the ones that have already been made and sold. The same pieces of trash that sell indiscriminately to assholes under the table and in parking lots but at least there would be laws to prosecute them under.
Interesting enough, those people that get their assault rifles (and other firearms) illegally get them from people that bought them legally and then sold them illegally.

[QueEx]

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Like DL Hughley said on "The View" last week, we should stop pretending to be surprised when this shit happens.

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

I'm going to have to assume you didn't read my post before you formulated your response so here's the pertinent part that if you had read it, you wouldnt have typed that



I'm for banning of the manufacture, sale, and import of such weaponry but they would still exist because no one is going to go around picking up the ones that have already been made and sold. The same pieces of trash that sell indiscriminately to assholes under the table and in parking lots but at least there would be laws to prosecute them under.
Interesting enough, those people that get their assault rifles (and other firearms) illegally get them from people that bought them legally and then sold them illegally.

And you wonder why I quit trying to debate with facts on here.

I guess you forgot how prohibition worked...

Once you ban what you wanna ban, you will push the gun industry underground.

There's a ban on cocaine. That's not stopping cocaine coming in the hood is it?

The reality is, have less gun free zones, allow conceal/carry, and have stricter penalties for folks who do crazy shit *like random shooting/ect* would work way more than restricting guns. However, you would think this idea is crazy, because you believe guns are satan incarnate.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

And you wonder why I quit trying to debate with facts on here.

I guess you forgot how prohibition worked...

Once you ban what you wanna ban, you will push the gun industry underground.

Bro, from which do you suffer: refusing to read or refusing to comprehend ???

The poster has said numerous times, he does not favor a ban. Moreover, most
of those who prefer gun control ARE NOT in favor of an absolute ban.

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Bro, from which do you suffer: refusing to read or refusing to comprehend ???

The poster has said numerous times, he does not favor a ban. Moreover, most
of those who prefer gun control ARE NOT in favor of an absolute ban.

Thank you. The gun industry didn't flee underground when assault rifles were banned before but they would now? With all those other legal guns to sell?
Now if a ban is out of the question politically, then all should be registered and each sale tightly regulated, no more gun shows with their loopholes and lax enforcement.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Bro, from which do you suffer: refusing to read or refusing to comprehend ???

Refusing to think!

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

The gun industry didn't flee underground when assault rifles were banned before but they would now? With all those other legal guns to sell?
Now if a ban is out of the question politically, then all should be registered and each sale tightly regulated, no more gun shows with their loopholes and lax enforcement.

I just don't understand how they find that so unreasonable

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Bro, from which do you suffer: refusing to read or refusing to comprehend ???

The poster has said numerous times, he does not favor a ban. Moreover, most
of those who prefer gun control ARE NOT in favor of an absolute ban.

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Thank you. The gun industry didn't flee underground when assault rifles were banned before but they would now? With all those other legal guns to sell?
Now if a ban is out of the question politically, then all should be registered and each sale tightly regulated, no more gun shows with their loopholes and lax enforcement.

Dave, you just don't get it, IT DIDN'T STOP CATS FROM THE HOOD FROM HAVING ASSAULT RIFLES.

The ban didn't work.

The way you want will not work because as long as there's organized crime, there will be a market for guns.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Dave, you just don't get it, IT DIDN'T STOP CATS FROM THE HOOD FROM HAVING ASSAULT RIFLES.

The ban didn't work.

The way you want will not work because as long as there's organized crime, there will be a market for guns.

I am sure Dave will answer for himself, but I just have to say, in my humble opinion and in all due respects to you: Bro, I believe it is you who fail to get it.

Originally Posted by actinanass

The ban didn't work.

For the umpteenth time, it is well understood that the possession of zillion-round guns cannot be reduced to zero; and that gunrelated injuries and deaths cannot be reduced to zero. Even with the strictest of regulations, guns will still manage to get into the hands of those who should least be legally allowed to possess them and, unfortunately, many will still die. BUT, It works when the possession of hand-held weapons of mass destruction is reduced to the lowest possible number. It being the reduction of gun related violence.

Originally Posted by actinanass

as long as there's organized crime, there will be a market for guns.

Of course, there will always be organized crime (or crime of whatever sort) -- BUT -- is that a reason not to agressively enforce the law ? ? ?

You appear to be saying: because you cannot eradicate it -- there is just no sense in fighting it

Roaches have been around since time immemorial; do you practice some form of pest control, or do you just allow them to run rampant in your home ? ? ?


`

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Dave, you just don't get it, IT DIDN'T STOP CATS FROM THE HOOD FROM HAVING ASSAULT RIFLES.

The ban didn't work.

So you are saying the regulation of potential mass killing substances don't work?


source: Raw Story

Ignoring ammonium nitrate law, Romney says OKC bombing is reason for no gun control

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Thursday said no new gun control laws were necessary after the massacre in Aurora, Colorado because Timothy McVeigh killed 168 in Oklahoma City with a bomb made of fertilizer — but in that case, Congress did eventually regulate the sale of ammonium nitrate.

“I don’t support new gun laws in our country,” Romney told CNN’s Piers Morgan. “I think that the effort to continue to look for some law to somehow make violence go away is missing the point.”

“The real point has to relate to individuals that are deranged, distressed, and to find them, to help them, and to keep them from carrying out terrible acts,” he added. “Timothy McVeigh. How many people did he kill? With fertilizer?”

“With products that can be purchased legally anywhere in the world, he was able to carry out vast mayhem. Somehow thinking that laws against the instruments of violence would make violence go away, I think is misguided.”

In fact, a law regulating ammonium nitrate sales was signed by President George W. Bush 12 years after the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 required the licensing of ammonium nitrate facilities and registration for buyers.

“Transactions involving the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate will be regulated at the point of sale and procedures for reporting a theft or loss of ammonium nitrate will be established,” according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“Each purchaser and seller will be required to apply for an Ammonium Nitrate (AN) Registered User Number with the Department, and each applicant will be screened against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).”

Watch this video from CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, broadcast July 27, 2012.

[hershey1973]

Sorry everyone,I've been away for awhile. Life intervened. Before I post my rebuttal to points Dave brought up in my first post, I have a question I need the gun control advocates to clarify. I ask What regulations specifically are you supporting as common sense measures? I dont see them listed in anyone's post. What should be regulated, what should be banned, what calibers,what magazine capacities etc. I just want to be clear on this so I am not shifting the debate out of a lack of understanding. THANKS!!

[hershey1973]

Originally Posted by Upgrade Dave

Again, can this debate be handled without strawman arguments?

The fact that some people are going to break the law is not a reason to not have the law. Why make rape and murder illegal since thousands of them happen every year, going by that logic?

This argument is somewhat disingenuous because we already have laws making illegal crimes with guns, selling guns illegally, possessing guns illegally, etc so it is not as if this is the wild west and anything goes...we have plenty of laws on the books..and with regard to new restrictions, the 270 million guns already on the market will be exempt. The result will be higher prices for those magazines and weapons that are pre-ban, but for those selling guns illegally, the now banned weapons will still be available. .

Gun laws don't handicap the average, law abiding citizen anymore than any other regulation on our other rights handicap us. If the sale and manufacture of high powered firearms and ammo is the law, then not only do the "good guys" not get them but the "bad guys" not get them either since the "bad guys" usually get their guns from someone who considers themselves a "good guy".

In this case you are correct, a ban on manufacture and import will not handicap the average citizen. The only reason you're correct however, is because we have millions of weapons in circulation already, so anything you want to buy will still be available for sale. There will still be robust sales of the millions of preban guns , just with prices significantly higher...which , as you find in any bullish commodity market, will motivate more people to part with an assault rifle or two because now theyre going to earn 5 to 10 times as much as the darned thing is worth. Would I legally sell one of my rifles today. No way, but when the thing is now worth 10X as much overnight because of some new regulation, well now I might actually consider it.

I, as an adult citizen with no criminal record or history of mental illness or connections to terrorists networks, should be able to buy most firearms within limits. That's the stance of the vast majority of people.
I dont know that you are accurately relating the stance of a vast majority, but even if you are...what are the limits that this vast majority agrees on?

Another person thinking that if someone had a gun things might have been different with no, zero, evidence to back that up. Here's a real situation: when Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, there was someone there with a gun and training and when he went to shoot his gun, the person he was going to shoot turned out to not be Jared Loughner.

You admit that adrenaline would negatively affect you, now add the darkness of a movie theater, hundreds of running, screaming people, and tear gas. It's more likely people would have considered you a partner of James Holmes instead of a wannabe hero.
No need to debate this point, neither of us really knows what impact armed movie goers would've made on that well planned tragedy
No one is trying to take your guns but there is no reason to not do common sense things to try to prevent this type of foolishness from happening. It's not rational to believe if the authorities had not been notified that Holmes was buying that much ammo in such a short period of time, someone wouldn't have at least checked on him. Not stopped him from buying, just talked to him and got a feel for him. If the dude had bought 2 gallons of cough syrup, the Feds would have been knocking on his door. Why should cough syrup be more heavily regulated than guns and ammo?

The problem with this entire line of thought is that it is not financially practical in our society today, therefore it is not common sense to send authorities. If we were starting from scratch and we had a well controlled tightly guarded border to minimize smuggling, and no second amendment, a budget surplus, and just a few guns in the hands of our citizens, I would agree we could prohibit certain weapon classes and actually have some chance of limiting the criminals access to them. The reality is we are 270 million guns later( not 270, not 2700, noteven 270,000...almost 300 million guns!!), and our economy is on the brink of collapse. Yet you believe we have the manpower to send authorities to check on every person who decides to purchase a certain quantity of ammo over a given timeframe. So clearly that means that congress would debate and establish a number of rounds over a given timeframe that would trigger this. Once that number of rounds was established, the criminal who plans to purchase ammo legally would simply purchase less than that number of rounds, and voila no authorities. Of course the black market will always be there as well.

Though a bigger problem would be if thousands of people everyday,bought a questionable quantity of ammo( and they do now) and we would have to create an entire bureaucracy to deal with it. We would have to hire hundreds or thousands of new agents, who would necessarily have to have both law enforcement and psychological training of some sort in order for a "conversation" to yield any useful intel on a person. Add in the multiple layers of management and infrastructure support and we now have a multi billion dollar dept whose task is to talk to people in the effort to find out if someone plans an almost impossible to predict and exceedingly rare mass slaughter event with assault rifles (the weapon type that is used the least with regards to gun crimes)
Q: How often are assault weapons used in crimes?

A: Not very. When the national ban was imposed, experts believed assault weapons accounted for between 2 percent and 8 percent of all gun crimes.

Statistics on their current use are extremely hard to find, but a gun-control group called the Violence Policy Center searched news reports for crimes involving assault weapons from March 2005 to March 2007. It found reports of 235 incidents, more than one-quarter of which involved police and often included shots fired at the officers. Eleven assault-weapon incidents were found in Illinois.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/C...#ixzz22qMun85C


For those who enjoy shooting sports, buying 1000 rounds at a time is not a big deal. 1000 rounds of ak ammo will run you about 230 bucks. If you go to a shooting range with three of your close friends and you each pitch in 60 bucks for the ammo and you each shoot 8 times, shooting a full magazine each time , you will have burned through darn near 1000 rounds in your few hours of low cost enjoyment. Now add in those thousands of individuals who practice a lot because they engage in IDPA sporting events, survival "preppers" and those stocking up on all of their supplies, and add in those who fear more prohibition, and add in the inevitable sales increases that occur during election years, and you have a financially impossible mission for this newly established boondoggle. I see the argument showing that ammonium nitrate was regulated, well the reality is far fewer individuals purchase large amounts of fertilizer than bullets. It is estimated that 10 billion bullets per year are sold in the US. We CANT afford to implement your idea.
I am interested in what WILL actually work, and make a true impact, not a theoretical idea that more laws will truly make us safer...I have had a gun to my head...my little brother was attacked by a thug with an ak47 and laser...fortunately, the bad guy didnt win that day..in fact he lost but thats another story... We have enough laws, how do we enforce them in a manner that actually reduces gun crime?

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by hershey1973

Sorry everyone,I've been away for awhile. Life intervened. Before I post my rebuttal to points Dave brought up in my first post, I have a question I need the gun control advocates to clarify. I ask What regulations specifically are you supporting as common sense measures? I dont see them listed in anyone's post. What should be regulated, what should be banned, what calibers,what magazine capacities etc. I just want to be clear on this so I am not shifting the debate out of a lack of understanding. THANKS!!

I don't know if you get your talking points from the RNC. Recently I am hearing this exact question, verbatim across the blogs of late. I answered this question earlier in this thread. For the sake of conceding to those that just pop in to threads without fully getting themselves up to speed as to where the discussion has gone, I will make it clearer:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Close the Gun Show Loophole

Monitor and in some cases limit the purchase of massive amounts of ammo just as the government monitors and limits the purchase of massive amounts of ammonium nitrate, as I have posted in the article above.

I don't think those regulations would prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing and using weapons in a manner that would be a detriment to society as a whole.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by hershey1973

and our economy is on the brink of collapse.

Says who? That is an entirely different argument. The economy could be brought back (i.e. pre Bush tax cuts) very easily. The economy is better than it was in 2008.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/C...#ixzz22qMun85C

That article offers nothing but speculation. The reality is that since President Obama has been in office, the right wingers have been committing massacres and the more slaughter, the less talk about doing something about the tools cause them. Time for politicians, asses and elephants to become leaders on this issue!

[QueEx]

Guns & Budgets & Lives

Aurora shooting victims, composite



"The problem with this entire line of thought

is that it is not financially practical

in our society today"

[actinanass]

Hmmm, Que, I thought you was an independent?

Seems like your views are more left leaning as the days go by.

Funny how that happens...

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by QueEx

I just don't understand how they find that so unreasonable

I don't either.

Originally Posted by actinanass

Dave, you just don't get it, IT DIDN'T STOP CATS FROM THE HOOD FROM HAVING ASSAULT RIFLES.

The ban didn't work.

The way you want will not work because as long as there's organized crime, there will be a market for guns.

Sarcasm Express coming so look out

You're right, AAA. And since murder and rape and theft will continue in the hood (and everywhere else), we should dump those laws as well.

Originally Posted by thoughtone

I don't know if you get your talking points from the RNC. Recently I am hearing this exact question, verbatim across the blogs of late. I answered this question earlier in this thread. For the sake of conceding to those that just pop in to threads without fully getting themselves up to speed as to where the discussion has gone, I will make it clearer:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Close the Gun Show Loophole

Monitor and in some cases limit the purchase of massive amounts of ammo just as the government monitors and limits the purchase of massive amounts of ammonium nitrate, as I have posted in the article above.

I don't think those regulations would prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing and using weapons in a manner that would be a detriment to society as a whole.

I will address our new friend hershey in more depth later (thanks for participating).

Originally Posted by actinanass

Hmmm, Que, I thought you was an independent?

Seems like your views are more left leaning as the days go by.

Funny how that happens...

All Independents have their own viewpoints, some more to the right and others to the left. You seem to suggest that those that label themselves "Independents" should just stay in the middle like both sides are valid no matter the discussion.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Hmmm, Que, I thought you was an independent?

Seems like your views are more left leaning as the days go by.

Funny how that happens...

Sometimes the correct answer is "more left leaning" as you stated and then sometimes the answer is more right leaning, to use your vernacular. It just happens that the answers are most often correct when they are left leaning!

[hershey1973]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

I don't know if you get your talking points from the RNC. Recently I am hearing this exact question, verbatim across the blogs of late. I answered this question earlier in this thread. For the sake of conceding to those that just pop in to threads without fully getting themselves up to speed as to where the discussion has gone, I will make it clearer:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Close the Gun Show Loophole

Monitor and in some cases limit the purchase of massive amounts of ammo just as the government monitors and limits the purchase of massive amounts of ammonium nitrate, as I have posted in the article above.

I don't think those regulations would prevent law abiding citizens from purchasing and using weapons in a manner that would be a detriment to society as a whole.

thank you for clarifying. No I dont have talking points...I may make points when I talk however..and I actually dont read any blogs whatsoever, unless bgol counts lol, nor am I a republican, or care about their talking points. This issue is being made political, but in my mind it is not a political issue..for every person it may or may not be a life or death issue.I am fully capable of making up my mind on this issue without any help from a politician, and I did in fact read every post in this thread prior to asking my question. I never "pop into" discussions, or let my gun go off half cocked..I just did not see the answer spelled out explicitly. I actually was not asking for a piece of congressional legislation you support, rather I was asking for the sake of this discussion what you would like to see happen with regards to guns. i did not see this debate framed in any precise way (perhaps it was in another thread) and since it appears some of you have sparred verbally before you have an idea of each other's biases in a way that I dont.

[QueEx]

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by hershey1973

thank you for clarifying. No I dont have talking points...I may make points when I talk however..and I actually dont read any blogs whatsoever, unless bgol counts lol, nor am I a republican, or care about their talking points. This issue is being made political, but in my mind it is not a political issue..for every person it may or may not be a life or death issue.I am fully capable of making up my mind on this issue without any help from a politician, and I did in fact read every post in this thread prior to asking my question. I never "pop into" discussions, or let my gun go off half cocked..I just did not see the answer spelled out explicitly. I actually was not asking for a piece of congressional legislation you support, rather I was asking for the sake of this discussion what you would like to see happen with regards to guns. i did not see this debate framed in any precise way (perhaps it was in another thread) and since it appears some of you have sparred verbally before you have an idea of each other's biases in a way that I dont.

Political. hell yes! The main reason why we are talking about this is because the NRA has made this a political hot potato. I gave you three specific things I would have addressed to help lessen the bloodshed with guns we have in this country. No, you cannot eliminate all killings. That is a flawed argument. These points are in response to your specific question. How else would you address laws if not by legislation?

We are a violent country. Not the most violent, but more violent than the other so called developed countries, to use a term that is common. More violent in some regions of the US than others. And the facts state that gun regulation does lessen the gun violence, whether anyone chooses to accept those facts.

For the most part the mass killings over the last several years have been committed by white males who have no criminal records, love guns and were pissed off at a group of people. These fools would not have killed massive amounts of people if they didn't have access to assault weapons.

And BTW, Jared Loughner gets life after killing six people were as Troy Davis is executed for killing one cop.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by hershey1973

. . . for the sake of this discussion what you would like to see happen with regards to guns.

Okay, for starters:

• Reasononable restrictions against the sale of weapons and ammunition to the mentally ill or those believed to be mentally unstable.

• National legislation -- so that there can be uniformity of regulation and enforcement of the sale and possession of guns and ammo.

• Background checks at the point of sale that includes mental background checks for people wishing to buy handguns and automatic weapons.

• Ban on high-capacity magazines & clits.

• A national reporting system covering the sale of guns and ammo (each time a person purchases a gun or ammo a report is generated to the national clearinghouse. The cost of reporting to be paid by the purchaser, at the place & time of purchase.

• Limitations on the amount of ammunition (tracked through a national clearinghouse (cost to operate the clearinghouse paid for my user-fees collected at the place and point of sale of weapons and ammo).

• Prohibit the sale of weapons and ammunition (by individuals or entities) except through an authorized and licensed gun and ammo dealer which must purchase a bond to insure the dealer's compliance with law. The licensed/bonded dealer must report to a national clearinghouse, under penalty of law, the violation of which, whether by individuals or entites, is punishable as a felony including a lofty fine that is recoverable through the bond. An individual or non-authorized entity desiring to sell or transfer ownership of a firearm or ammo would be required to go through an authorized and licensed gun/ammo dealer so that reports are generated and fees collected.

• Mandatory registration of ALL guns through the national clearinghouse. New gun sales to be registered immediately and grace period for existing guns to be registered. Registration accomplished through a licensed gun and ammo dealer. Fees for registration collected at the point and place of registration.

• Public possession (possession beyond the immediate perimeter of the holders property) of an unregistered gun = a felony punishable by time (including a mandatory minimum) and a lofty fine.

Would you like for me to draft the legislation ? ? ?




'

[Upgrade Dave]

This argument is somewhat disingenuous because we already have laws making illegal crimes with guns, selling guns illegally, possessing guns illegally, etc so it is not as if this is the wild west and anything goes...we have plenty of laws on the books..and with regard to new restrictions, the 270 million guns already on the market will be exempt. The result will be higher prices for those magazines and weapons that are pre-ban, but for those selling guns illegally, the now banned weapons will still be available. .

We do have laws in place but they have a number of loopholes and have been purposely weakened. That was very clear when the "Fast and Furious" mess was really exposed. In many cases, if those loopholes were closed, we wouldn't need new legislation at all.

In this case you are correct, a ban on manufacture and import will not handicap the average citizen. The only reason you're correct however, is because we have millions of weapons in circulation already, so anything you want to buy will still be available for sale. There will still be robust sales of the millions of preban guns , just with prices significantly higher...which , as you find in any bullish commodity market, will motivate more people to part with an assault rifle or two because now theyre going to earn 5 to 10 times as much as the darned thing is worth. Would I legally sell one of my rifles today. No way, but when the thing is now worth 10X as much overnight because of some new regulation, well now I might actually consider it.

There are consequences to every action and I'm okay with that.

I dont know that you are accurately relating the stance of a vast majority, but even if you are...what are the limits that this vast majority agrees on?

Answered aptly by Que and Thought1

[Upgrade Dave]

Originally Posted by hershey1973

The problem with this entire line of thought is that it is not financially practical in our society today, therefore it is not common sense to send authorities. If we were starting from scratch and we had a well controlled tightly guarded border to minimize smuggling, and no second amendment, a budget surplus, and just a few guns in the hands of our citizens, I would agree we could prohibit certain weapon classes and actually have some chance of limiting the criminals access to them. The reality is we are 270 million guns later( not 270, not 2700, noteven 270,000...almost 300 million guns!!), and our economy is on the brink of collapse. Yet you believe we have the manpower to send authorities to check on every person who decides to purchase a certain quantity of ammo over a given timeframe. So clearly that means that congress would debate and establish a number of rounds over a given timeframe that would trigger this. Once that number of rounds was established, the criminal who plans to purchase ammo legally would simply purchase less than that number of rounds, and voila no authorities. Of course the black market will always be there as well.

I disagree.
I have to keep going back to the cough syrup analogy because it's damn near perfect.
We have enough money to do anything we actually want to do, anything.

Though a bigger problem would be if thousands of people everyday,bought a questionable quantity of ammo( and they do now) and we would have to create an entire bureaucracy to deal with it. We would have to hire hundreds or thousands of new agents, who would necessarily have to have both law enforcement and psychological training of some sort in order for a "conversation" to yield any useful intel on a person. Add in the multiple layers of management and infrastructure support and we now have a multi billion dollar dept whose task is to talk to people in the effort to find out if someone plans an almost impossible to predict and exceedingly rare mass slaughter event with assault rifles (the weapon type that is used the least with regards to gun crimes)

No need for a new agency, the ATF and FBI already exist.
And no need for any psychological training they don't already receive. Most criminals aren't professionals and wouldn't survive the relatively mild scrutiny of simple questions by trained pros, this is evidenced by shows like "The First 48". This doesn't mean an arrest would be made but people act differently when they know someone is on to their shit.

For those who enjoy shooting sports, buying 1000 rounds at a time is not a big deal. 1000 rounds of ak ammo will run you about 230 bucks. If you go to a shooting range with three of your close friends and you each pitch in 60 bucks for the ammo and you each shoot 8 times, shooting a full magazine each time , you will have burned through darn near 1000 rounds in your few hours of low cost enjoyment. Now add in those thousands of individuals who practice a lot because they engage in IDPA sporting events, survival "preppers" and those stocking up on all of their supplies, and add in those who fear more prohibition, and add in the inevitable sales increases that occur during election years, and you have a financially impossible mission for this newly established boondoggle. I see the argument showing that ammonium nitrate was regulated, well the reality is far fewer individuals purchase large amounts of fertilizer than bullets. It is estimated that 10 billion bullets per year are sold in the US. We CANT afford to implement your idea.
I am interested in what WILL actually work, and make a true impact, not a theoretical idea that more laws will truly make us safer...I have had a gun to my head...my little brother was attacked by a thug with an ak47 and laser...fortunately, the bad guy didnt win that day..in fact he lost but thats another story... We have enough laws, how do we enforce them in a manner that actually reduces gun crime?

Again, we have the resources to check them out. We can afford to give billions to oil companies and have given billions to Iowa farmers for years in ethanol subsidies. So money isn't an obstacle.