Gun Control in the US - Part 2

[wilbur]

As I said, the whole NRA propaganda is based on paranoid conspiracy theories.

What conspiracy is that? Banning firearms? What about the so-called 'assault weapons' ban in the '90's that Dubya overturned? Some politicians like Senator Diane Feinstein do indeed want to ban firearms.... but only the most 'dangerous'. Problem is, if you keep on doing that, everything should eventually be gone. After the AR-15's are gone, they are going to ban those dangerous 'sniper rifles' with the big scopes on them, who's only purpose is to kill humans. Oddly enough, they resemble strangely to the rifle you need to kill a moose.

They call certain firearms assault weapons in order to manufacture popular consent in order to ban them. They have the same functionality as other semi-automatic rifles, and they certainly are not 'high-powered', in keeping with the hysteria. It has happened before. There was an assault weapons ban back in the '90's, repealed by Dubya. The were mass confiscations in the UK and a half billion dollar compulsory buy back of semi-auto firearms in Australia. Despite that, the crime rate with firearms there has increased. In the US, the rate of firearms homicide has steadily been decreasing for over 40 years.

As far as the NRA, they have a constituency of 5 million members. They know how politicians behave and their propensity to want to ban guns like Senator Diane Feinstein. 5 million owners of AR-15's are not going to accept a unilateral ban on their property. Despite the NRA, there are over 100 million owners of firearms in the US. The US will become undemocratic when guns are banned despite the popular vote.

Now if you excuse me, I have to reload some ammo for the week-end.

 

[Frankfooter]

A Texas gun advocate just went and killed here two daughters.
https://boingboing.net/2016/06/27/semiautomatic-handgun-advocate.html

In March, Christy Sheats, 42, wrote on Facebook: “It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semiautomatic weapons.” On Friday she got into an argument with her two daughters and shot them both dead. Sheats herself was shot and killed by a police officer.

 

[kid_kuh]

Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. However, if they didn't have those guns it would have been a lot harder. American's and Let's arm ourselves. I love Canada. Proud to be Canadian

 

[fuji]

Judges are quite accessible in the US. The proof does not need a trial to be validated, as a trial is the result of a criminal prosecution or a civil suit; yet, nobody is being formally accused here, nor is anybody seeking civil damages. They just have to provide evidence to a judge that a person was flagged, and have the necessary evidence to back that claim. Then the judge issues an order. Ever hear of in injunction? It can happen quite fast.

It should be a 30 day wait anyway. I worry about anyone who can't wait a few weeks to get a gun.

I own several guns that I purchased in Canada and it really didn't interfere with my life that I had wait for the background check.

 

[oldjones]

Gotta love how stuff that has already happened in other places of the world, like Canada, are somehow "paranoid conspiracy theories". Registration has already led to reclassification and confiscation/abandonment. Denying it over and over again doesn't make it any less true.

And there are all sorts of guns, duly and lawfully registered here, in the USA and elsewhere that have not been confiscated/abandoned and/or reclassified and remain in the hands of their lawful owners.

Repeating over and over that any orderly regulation must inevitably end with expropriation by an oppressive government doesn't make it so.

 

[Smallcock]

A Texas gun advocate just went and killed here two daughters.
https://boingboing.net/2016/06/27/semiautomatic-handgun-advocate.html

she had a history of mental illness

 

[Frankfooter]

she had a history of mental illness

Still a legal gun owner in the states.
And an advocate for more guns.

 

[cunning linguist]

And there are all sorts of guns, duly and lawfully registered here, in the USA and elsewhere that have not been confiscated/abandoned and/or reclassified and remain in the hands of their lawful owners.

Repeating over and over that any orderly regulation must inevitably end with expropriation by an oppressive government doesn't make it so.

For now...

The next "too dangerous to own" gun is always around the corner, with "the sky is falling" hysteria and misinformation to demonize it, always following. They're trying to get rid of lever actions in Australia, for fuck's sake. Thankfully, a sizeable amount of guns in Canada no longer have to be registered for the convenience of state sanctioned theft.

 

[wilbur]

It should be a 30 day wait anyway. I worry about anyone who can't wait a few weeks to get a gun.

I own several guns that I purchased in Canada and it really didn't interfere with my life that I had wait for the background check.

I think you should review your firearms regulations.

You don't need to wait for a background check when buying a firearm in Canada. That's because the background check already took place when you applied for your firearms license; you only need one firearm license, and it is to be renewed every five years.

Thereafter, being the holder of a Canadian Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), you get an automatic background check every single day of the year.

You can then go to Sail or Canadian Tire anytime you want during opening hours, and after presenting your firearms license, proceed to purchase a rifle over-the-counter.

If you wish to purchase a restricted firearm like a pistol or an AR-15, the transfer would first have to be approved by the OPP before you can take it home, and that happens in a matter of a few days.

So based on this, I doubt you ever purchased a firearm in Canada if you think you had to wait for a background check in Canada.

And the problem with many Canadian gun grabbers is that, given their ignorance of Canadian firearms regulations, they assume that Canadian and US gun regulations are the same and next to non-existant, and that is the pretext why they advocate the banning of 'dangerous guns in the hands of anybody'.

 

[wilbur]

Still a legal gun owner in the states.
And an advocate for more guns.

She had a facebook page that called for lesser gun control. And that made her a noteworthy national advocate. Ya... right!

The media conflates, lies and seeks to create hysteria, and this is an example.

 

[wilbur]

And there are all sorts of guns, duly and lawfully registered here, in the USA and elsewhere that have not been confiscated/abandoned and/or reclassified and remain in the hands of their lawful owners.

Repeating over and over that any orderly regulation must inevitably end with expropriation by an oppressive government doesn't make it so.

And lets say they started banning Cadillacs because they're ugly and that makes their drivers want to run people over.

'And there are all kinds of cars, duly and lawfully registered here, in the USA and elsewhere that have not been confiscated/abandoned and/or reclassified and remain in the hands of their lawful owners.'

As you would consider such an action totally arbitrary and unfair, would you not want to say "I'll give you my Cadillac steeting wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"?

That's what gun owners think about when arbitrarily threatened with confiscation of their legally acquired property.

 

[fuji]

I think you should review your firearms regulations.

You don't need to wait for a background check when buying a firearm in Canada. That's because the background check already took place when you applied for your firearms license; you only need one firearm license, and it is to be renewed every five years.

Thereafter, being the holder of a Canadian Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), you get an automatic background check every single day of the year.

You can then go to Sail or Canadian Tire anytime you want during opening hours, and after presenting your firearms license, proceed to purchase a rifle over-the-counter.

If you wish to purchase a restricted firearm like a pistol or an AR-15, the transfer would first have to be approved by the OPP before you can take it home, and that happens in a matter of a few days.

So based on this, I doubt you ever purchased a firearm in Canada if you think you had to wait for a background check in Canada.

And the problem with many Canadian gun grabbers is that, given their ignorance of Canadian firearms regulations, they assume that Canadian and US gun regulations are the same and next to non-existant, and that is the pretext why they advocate the banning of 'dangerous guns in the hands of anybody'.

I'm clearly talking about the first gun you purchase and specifically the rcmp check that is performed after your test results are sent in. In my case it took about two months from enrolling in the course to getting my PAL.

I worry about somebody who is in a huge hurry to get a gun. They may be planning murder or suicide. Much better to make them wait a month or two.

I do not worry about somebody who is in a hurry to get a second gun--if they were going to do something worrisome, they would have done it already with the first one. So it's kind of a non-issue.

That's one benefit of the Canadian system though -- because the PAL continually rechecks your background you CAN buy the second gun in a frictionless way, while still having a background check. In the US since they don't know who has or hasn't purchased a firearm they would have to implement a delay on EVERY purchase to accomplish the same thing, when there's only really value in forcing a wait on somebody the FIRST time.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I think you should review your firearms regulations.

You don't need to wait for a background check when buying a firearm in Canada. That's because the background check already took place when you applied for your firearms license; you only need one firearm license, and it is to be renewed every five years.

Thereafter, being the holder of a Canadian Possession and Acquisition License (PAL), you get an automatic background check every single day of the year.

You can then go to Sail or Canadian Tire anytime you want during opening hours, and after presenting your firearms license, proceed to purchase a rifle over-the-counter.

If you wish to purchase a restricted firearm like a pistol or an AR-15, the transfer would first have to be approved by the OPP before you can take it home, and that happens in a matter of a few days.

So based on this, I doubt you ever purchased a firearm in Canada if you think you had to wait for a background check in Canada.

And the problem with many Canadian gun grabbers is that, given their ignorance of Canadian firearms regulations, they assume that Canadian and US gun regulations are the same and next to non-existant, and that is the pretext why they advocate the banning of 'dangerous guns in the hands of anybody'.

Isn't it the RCMP (or can they delegate)? Mind you, in the early days of the Cdn gun registry, my father was visited by a local police detective as a follow up to his application - he was denied due to the meds he was taking, which we didn't have an argument with since daddy wasn't hunting any longer, but the cop allowed me to gain possession in lieu of outright confiscation.

 

[oldjones]

For now...

The next "too dangerous to own" gun is always around the corner, with "the sky is falling" hysteria and misinformation to demonize it, always following. They're trying to get rid of lever actions in Australia, for fuck's sake. Thankfully, a sizeable amount of guns in Canada no longer have to be registered for the convenience of state sanctioned theft.

Pardon me, I thought you were the guy who wanted folks to be reasonable and not judge all by the actions of a few. You should try a taste of your own prescription and accept that reasonable regulation is merely that, not some secret code for The Plot to Disarm Americans.

At least when you're talking to folks you'd rather have on your side, that is if you don't want them voting against unreasonable extremists and lunatics having easy access to guns. Best show your reasonable side, or as much of it as you have left. Keep the "…state sanctioned theft" stuff for those who know the secret handshake.

 

[oldjones]

And lets say they started banning Cadillacs because they're ugly and that makes their drivers want to run people over.

'And there are all kinds of cars, duly and lawfully registered here, in the USA and elsewhere that have not been confiscated/abandoned and/or reclassified and remain in the hands of their lawful owners.'

As you would consider such an action totally arbitrary and unfair, would you not want to say "I'll give you my Cadillac steeting wheel when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"?

That's what gun owners think about when arbitrarily threatened with confiscation of their legally acquired property.

Really!!? Tell ya what, it's your analogy, you supply the "… totally arbitrary and unfair circumstance for confiscating guns". But be sure you make it as ludicrous as your silly Cadillac example. My only knowledge of anything remotely close in the car world is the government sensibly refusing to let you license a vehicle that hasn't passed safety or pollution standards. Or do anything but park an unlicensed one.

But you are right about what owners think (using the word 'think' very loosely). Car owners who were refused that I've talked to, did 'think' the government was arbitrary in depriving them of the irresponsible use of their unsafe automobiles.

 

[cunning linguist]

Pardon me, I thought you were the guy who wanted folks to be reasonable and not judge all by the actions of a few. You should try a taste of your own prescription and accept that reasonable regulation is merely that, not some secret code for The Plot to Disarm Americans.

At least when you're talking to folks you'd rather have on your side, that is if you don't want them voting against unreasonable extremists and lunatics having easy access to guns. Best show your reasonable side, or as much of it as you have left. Keep the "…state sanctioned theft" stuff for those who know the secret handshake.

What reasonable and effective solutions have been proposed, especially by ignorant gun haters who don't even know how the things even work? Background checks already exist, possession of a firearm by a felon or someone being suspected of being "mentally ill" is already illegal.

Placing people on a government watch list, which lacks accountability, transparency and recourse, where they're presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, is not reasonable.

Arbitrarily banning certain firearms because of a gross overstatement of their "lethality" (in actuality, cosmetic and ergonomic accessories and features) is not reasonable, especially considering that such firearms were responsible for roughly 250 deaths in 2014; a single digit percentage.

Anti gun people aren't reasonable, they don't want compromise.

 

[GPIDEAL]

What reasonable and effective solutions have been proposed, especially by ignorant gun haters who don't even know how the things even work? Background checks already exist, possession of a firearm by a felon or someone being suspected of being "mentally ill" is already illegal.

Placing people on a government watch list, which lacks accountability, transparency and recourse, where they're presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent, is not reasonable.

Arbitrarily banning certain firearms because of a gross overstatement of their "lethality" (in actuality, cosmetic and ergonomic accessories and features) is not reasonable, especially considering that such firearms were responsible for roughly 250 deaths in 2014; a single digit percentage.

Anti gun people aren't reasonable, they don't want compromise.

You don't have to be guilty to have to be subject to more stringent standards or restrictions. The safety of society is more important than a single individual's unfettered rights to lethal weapons that can harm many.

Had there been more stringent standards for terrorist suspect Omar Mateen (his mental health deserves more scrutiny too, but that's another issue), his screening or purchase of an AR-15 could've been prolonged if not denied. If denied, he can appeal.

Why do you care if a terrorist or lone wolf suspect is subject to more gun control?

 

[cunning linguist]

You don't have to be guilty to have to be subject to more stringent standards or restrictions. The safety of society is more important than a single individual's unfettered rights to lethal weapons that can harm many.

Had there been more stringent standards for terrorist suspect Omar Mateen (his mental health deserves more scrutiny too, but that's another issue), his screening or purchase of an AR-15 could've been prolonged if not denied. If denied, he can appeal.

Why do you care if a terrorist or lone wolf suspect is subject to more gun control?

You don't have to be guilty to be subject to more stringent standards or restrictions. The safety of society is more important than a single individual's unfettered right to practice a religion which promotes bigotry, patriarchy, terrorism and violence against women and homosexuals.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Suspicion isn't guilt, especially when such suspicion isn't transparent and there's no accountability or recourse. If he's a criminal, terrorist or "mentally ill" the burden of proof falls on agents of the state. That's how due process and freedom work. It should not be easy to deny someone their rights or invade their privacy. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of which group it targets.

 

[basketcase]

That and the constitution.....

The constitution does not state that gun purchases should be free. In fact you might notice the 2nd amendment prominently mentions the term "well regulated".

 

[basketcase]

Gotta love how stuff that has already happened in other places of the world, like Canada, are somehow "paranoid conspiracy theories". Registration has already led to reclassification and confiscation/abandonment. Denying it over and over again doesn't make it any less true.

Wait, are you saying that Canada has banned gun ownership? Shit. I better let people know.