I've never used that.
I select "reply with quote", copy it, then select the next reply with quote I want, and paste the previous one that I copied.
And today's mass shooting 11 dead in Virginia Beach Municipal Complex
- Thread starter rafterman
- Start date
I select "reply with quote", copy it, then select the next reply with quote I want, and paste the previous one that I copied.
Which is far better than the states. The Federal system sets the base line. Provinces are allowed to be stricter, not less strict.
After saying you want compromise, why are you so opposed to federal background checks for ALL purchases in the US?
p.s. From a gun owners site.
The background checks do not extend to private sales of firearms. To close this loophole there are currently 18 states that have enacted legislation to extend the background check law to cover private sales. These laws usually require firearm sales to be processed through a licensed dealer or the local police. A number of states only apply these laws to handguns while others cover both handguns and long guns. A more in depth look at private gun sales with a list of requirements per state can be found on our statistics page.
The states that currently require a background check on private gun sales are;
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, New Jersey, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington
https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/
Yet the majority of them support some level of regulation..
In an indoor range perhaps but in my experience, I don't recall seeing suppressors at a range and I don't recall seeing the employees asking me to use one.
And I'm fine with that. That said, there is no reason to have a handgun is public. A long gun on a farm or in the woods is reasonable in some circumstances though.
And that is my huge issue. If police who are legally required to train only have to qualify once or twice a year, how can you feel safe with random people with random experience and likely no tactical training being responsible for public safety?
p.s. I never said the civil wart was an idle threat but it is a threat. I fully believe the gun nuts would go off if they faced any limits on their desire for M-60s and grenade launchers.
Translation: registration and/or the end of private sales. Gun owners won't have it.
How's this for compromise, universal background checks in exchange for reciprocity?
It's hard to have a discussion with anyone who tells you they really know what you mean, and you yourself don't. Clearly such people are only interested in listening to themselves.
But in case you actually are interested in any positions but your own cunny, 'compromise' means concessions from both sides. However, not all disagreements are appropriate for compromise; we don't compromise with the guy who wants to do 50mph through the school zones we post at 20, and saw things off at 35.
On the matter of background checks, if they can be done at all, then there is no reason they cannot also be done for private sales, only the practicalities of arranging for them. Processing the sale paperwork through authorized dealers as mentioned is one simple way. About as onerous as a private car sale.
Is your Alzheimer's kicking in again you old fart because we already discussed the lack of "background checks" during a private car sale. Let me refresh your memory: when was the last time anyone asked for a driver's abstract? Or proof of insurance? Or even a driver's license when they sold their vehicle privately? How do you know that the next subsequent buyer isn't a wheelman for a bank robbery crew or one of those crazies who can'take buy a gun, so they buy a cube van and drive it into a group of pedestrians? Dealerships don't even care about a driver's history, they only care about their ability to pay off debt.
At least we're being honest about compromise and how it will never happen.
The constitution also gives whites the right to own slaves. The constitution bans women from voting.
Funny how those sections can get thrown away but others such as guns are an obvious right to be defended
They also had an absolute ban on alcohol (18th) yet that again is cool to throw out the window
People pick and choose which sections they agree with and any attempt to claim guns as a right is just as laughable as trying to claim slavery or ban on alcohol as right
And you were talking about compromise. Nice.
BTW. That site shows that you were absolutely wrong. And the dozen or so states that regulate private sales don't ban them, the sale just has to be done through a licensed dealer of police station.
What you've conveniently left out, is that a half of those states have a "may issue" policy and third of those states have registries. So much for "one size fits all".
All that reasonable stuff — you did leave out mechanical checks — is part of the routine car-registration process which completes the purchase. If the authorities shifted all, or parts of that sensible process to the point of purchase we'd still be doing the same stuff, although perhaps with shorter queues.
I don't see why you went to the trouble of listing off some bad things drivers might do with their purchases. The point of those requirements is to do the best we can, with the least inconvenience to give all the rest of us the most safety practical. So we can have some reasonable confidence that the owner who proves to be a danger will be efficiently identified, the injured will be compensated, and the guilty properly dealt with. Of course the biggest difference with cars, is that the baddest thing someone might do with a gun, is the very thing guns are designed to do best.
As for gun regulation, we're already well on the road of compromise. There isn't a single jurisdiction in North America where ownership is free of them. So a better description of what you're really talking about, would be no more progress towards better regulations.
Why not?
Because mechanical checks and registration aren't actually necessary, if the vehicle in question won't be operated on public roads.
That's rich, the entire gun control argument is based off of what one might do with a gun. When was the last time a vehicle registry was used to reclassify and subsequently prohibit and/or confiscate a certain type of vehicle on a mass scale? They'really not the same thing, so don'the pretend they are.
Which "better" regulations are you talking about and why is the focus on adding more red tape rather than enforcing the laws that already exist?
What percentage of cars purchased are not operated on public roads?
How about no mechanical checks for guns that won't be used around living creatures or won't be used in society.
Sorry, it's not so rich. These proposals are being discussed because of what has happened and will continue to happen by people with guns unless changes are made.
And if no one ever used guns to kill, gun regulations wouldn't be necessary either.
So that enormous mass of car regulations is OK, but you argue against gun regulation because of what it might do to owners? When was the last time a gun registry was used to reclassify and subsequently prohibit and/or confiscate a certain type of weapon on a mass scale? The two mechanisms certainly aren't the same sort of thing, but you're pretending they are. Guns are designed and frequently used to kill, motor vehicles are not. There are thousands of deliberate civilian gun deaths every year, and very few deliberate car deaths. They're different.
But over the years regulators have certainly reclassified, recalled and prohibited, and even seized vehicles as they became aware of the dangers they presented, or new improvements that would make them safer. Just try to buy a car without laminated glass.
When you tell us just what compromise you're so afraid of that it will never happen, ask me again about specific 'better' regs. For now you'll have to make the mental effort of seeing those you oppose as the same sort of reasonable people your responsible gun owners are. Give them credit for proposing new regulations because they sincerely believe the facts show they're better ones. Then you can point out actual weaknesses or failings in them and make useful progress instead of arguing 'might-be's using phony analogies and squandering the respect you began with.
That give and take is how compromises begin. Not that you care.
