Again, instituting a 3 day cap makes it impossible for an underfunded organization to collect compelling evidence.
Gun Control in the US - Part 2
- Thread starter cunning linguist
- Start date
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...-more-scary-looking-guns-before-registry-dies
This was just 4 years ago, a last minute, arbitrary gun grab, when the Long Gun Registry was in its death throes.
Paranoia? More like recorded history.
1) Background checks are not universally mandatory in the states and the databases used for them are not coherent. Some places even have laws that prevent gun records from being digitized.
2) There is nothing preventing someone selling to a criminal or mentally ill person in a private sale since background checks are not required.
3) The NRA lobby does an excellent job making sure there is no oversight or no funding for that oversight. The ATF is well aware of a small number of gun dealers who provide the majority of 'illegal' guns used in crimes but federal regulations and lack of staff prevent them from following up.
4) Your use of the term "arbitrary" is in fact the opposite of what is proposed, a figment of the paranoia spawned by the US gun lobby.
As you and wilber have stated, Canada already requires background checks for all owners yet Canada still has one of the highest rates of gun ownership per capita. You might feel inconvenienced because you have to lock up your guns and thing the government knowing about you is an invasion of privacy but our laws seem to strike a pretty good balance. Meanwhile in the US the gun lobby heavily fights against anything even related to ensuring safer gun ownership.
1) Background checks are required in every single state at the retail level, buying a gun from a gun store isn't like picking up a jug of milk or pack of toilet paper.
2) That's like saying there's nothing stopping an underage kid from buying booze from a friend who is old enough...nothing except the law.
3) The regressive left does a great job pandering to its base and perpetuating misinformation about firearms, their operation and their owners. "Assault weapons" which are already a misnomer, accounted for like 250 deaths in 2014 or a single digit percentage but they're being deemed "too dangerous to own" because of cosmetic and ergonomic accessories and features.
4) Yeah, arbitrary. How else do you explain a century old technology, semi-automatic fire, is suddenly vilified because of how it looks.
Yes, there is an automated background check component and thankfully, with registration gone, I no longer have to report at point-of-sale, which is really what gun grabbers mean by "universal background checks". The idea of verifying the criminal history of a prospective buyer of your secondhand firearms would be a lot more palatable, if it didn't imply point-of-sale recording, that would be an actual compromise; but gun grabbers don't want compromise, they want concessions.
More like I value concepts like freedom, privacy, due process and natural justice; you know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing?
I thought all the Johns here felt the same way; you know, "I'm not harming anyone, why are you treating me like a criminal?" and all that jazz.
He's not wrong. It has happened in Canada.
While I agree with the safety training and the background checks we have here, the registry we have and the arbitrary classification of guns as restricted or prohibited is illogical and has been intentionally abused by the RCMP.
There have been some really egregious cases and there has been no accountability on the RCMP for arbitrarily reclassifying firearms. The only thing that finally stopped abuse and the only ultimate accountability was the Conservative legislation that ended the abusive practices.
There really were cases where for purely arbitrary reasons the RCMP declared legally purchased non restricted firearms prohibited and started seizing them until the government legislated a stop to it.
Yeah, like every single one of them thinks the same. You've sure changed your tune since you posted:
But "anti gun people" are all the same, nothing wrong with blaming every one of them for some extreme proposals of the few.cunning linguist said:
Do let us all know where to join you in your equally vehement protests against no-fly lists which certainly measure up to every one of those criteria of injustice you listed off, and which affect far more Americans than the pathetic, easily evaded fifty-state state patchwork of gun regs. you refer to, as if that mess actually answered any purpose.
Last edited:
Who says I like no fly lists? Again, don't like government watch lists with no accountability, transparency, oversight or recourse. Ending up on a list like that should be no reason to invade someone's privacy and strip them of their rights. Suspicion isn't a conviction, it isn't even a charge.
I've been arguing from day one, that the shooter did everything legally, his suspicion was not sufficient to invade his privacy and deny him rights. No extra gun control could have prevented this, he would have passed a background check, he did pass a background check. Sure, it ended in tragedy, but shit happens.
It's not that every gun would be seized/banned, but some have and will be. it happened last year. The RCMP decided to ban certain very popular rifles.
I agree. I don't mind background checks. Hell, I'd even agree to in person interviews for every applicant and renewal. But if I'm a law-abiding, responsible citizen, don't treat me like a criminal or a child.
.
