Gun Control

[wufan]

Yes, that is what I’m referring to. No, I’m not 100% committed to supporting universal background checks. I’m just trying to hear the arguments against and haven’t been having much luck getting anyone to address it specifically.

Feel free to read the very first post of this thread for more detail.

Not that I necessarily believe any of the following, but:

1. More government is always bad.
2. Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is bad.
3. Invasion of privacy.
4. Interruption of free trade.

All of those could be proposed as reasons against, though I'm not sure they out weigh the benefits.

[SB Shock]

Yes, that is what I’m referring to. No, I’m not 100% committed to supporting universal background checks. I’m just trying to hear the arguments against and haven’t been having much luck getting anyone to address it specifically.

Feel free to read the very first post of this thread for more detail.

The problem is you use imprecise language like "loophole". There is no loophole, when they wrote existing laws they decided they were going to allow private persons to be able to sell or hand down their weapons in private transactions. They put the responsibility of private owners to ensure all relevant laws are adhered to.

Since then whenever they have tried move to restrict private sellers - they always seem to over reach and submit law changes would be overly punitive to the honest gun owners. So why is there push back from universal background checks:

1. Some people want the ability to be able to hand down their weapons to their children/relatives without government interference.
2. Some fear that universal background checks will become a national gun registry and the government will show up at your doorstep someday.
3. There are those who believe it none of the government business.
4. There is fear of some that their personal information will be compromised.
5. There is a belief that further restriction will be punitive to honest people, but ultimately doesn't affect the criminals because they will get weapons regardless
6. There is realization by those who believe in the 2nd amendment, that those who push these new restrictions real agenda is no guns and they are working to incrementally to reduce 2nd amendment rights because they can not hit the homerun of a complete ban - and therefore pro-2a will fight them at every turn because there will always be another "common sense" restriction that needs to be added.

[Kung Wu]

The problem is you use imprecise language like "loophole". There is no loophole, when they wrote existing laws they decided they were going to allow private persons to be able to sell or hand down their weapons in private transactions. They put the responsibility of private owners to ensure all relevant laws are adhered to.

Since then whenever they have tried move to restrict private sellers - they always seem to over reach and submit law changes would be overly punitive to the honest gun owners. So why is there push back from universal background checks:

1. Some people want the ability to be able to hand down their weapons to their children/relatives without government interference.
2. Some fear that universal background checks will become a national gun registry and the government will show up at your doorstep someday.
3. There are those who believe it none of the government business.
4. There is fear of some that their personal information will be compromised.
5. There is a belief that further restriction will be punitive to honest people, but ultimately doesn't affect the criminals because they will get weapons regardless
6. There is realization by those who believe in the 2nd amendment, that those who push these new restrictions real agenda is no guns and they are working to incrementally to reduce 2nd amendment rights because they can not hit the homerun of a complete ban - and therefore pro-2a will fight them at every turn because there will always be another "common sense" restriction that needs to be added.

Spot on.

[MoValley John]

Nine birds cleaned, frozen and packed. That is three days of limits, boys! Sore legs, tired and yet refreshed. I lost a trigger assembly pin in my Wingmaster, so I have that to replace before we leave for Wisconsin ducks next Thursday.

Nothing like pheasant hunting in South Dakota! Nothing!

All birds were shot with unregistered, high powered firearms. No people were harmed in the shooting of said high powered, unregistered firearms. No banks were robbed in Pierre, South Dakota, nor were there any drive by shootings, gun related murders, or shootouts over drug deals gone bad during the time we were in the area shooting high powered, unregistered firearms.

[MoValley John]

Oh, I kind of hurried a shot today and didnt get the shotgun shouldered before I pulled the trigger. The butt of the gun was just below the shoulder, on the end of the bicep. I have a nice, dark, painful bruise to remind me why the gun needs to be shouldered properly.

I don't think I've ever done something like that before. I guess when six roosters jump at once, you get excited.

[Dave Stalwart]

Oh, I kind of hurried a shot today and didnt get the shotgun shouldered before I pulled the trigger. The butt of the gun was just below the shoulder, on the end of the bicep. I have a nice, dark, painful bruise to remind me why the gun needs to be shouldered properly.

I don't think I've ever done something like that before. I guess when six roosters jump at once, you get excited.

Six roosters? Or were there perhaps 7 roosters? :)

[Kung Wu]

All birds were shot with unregistered, high powered firearms. No people were harmed in the shooting of said high powered, unregistered firearms. No banks were robbed in Pierre, South Dakota, nor were there any drive by shootings, gun related murders, or shootouts over drug deals gone bad during the time we were in the area shooting high powered, unregistered firearms.

But did someone purchase the firearm for you, you know for your birthday or anything like that? Because that would be straw purchase -- if you got one for your birthday.

[Aargh]

This has turned into one of the more entertaining threads of the offseason. I think we've mostly agreed that gun control is hitting your target - oh - and planting your shotgun frimly on your shoulder before pulling the trigger.

I've got to give a counter to one earlier post from wufan:

1. More government is always bad.

There are significant chunks of big government that at one time were needed functions of government. In the 1800's there were a lot of businessmen seeking to eliminate any competition for the goods or services they provided. That resulted in the regulation of monopolies and requiring government approval for acquisitions and mergers. That was probably a good way to expand government because the Capitalists had found ways to destroy the free market concept that our version of Capitalism is based on. That expansion of government seems to still work fairly well.

Then there's the expansion of government that's based on subjective evaluations. The easy examples are OSHA and the EPA.

Employers exposing workers to unsafe conditions was rampant prior to OSHA. Killing, wounding, and maiming workers was just considered part of the process of producing goods and services. OSHA's original purpose had good intentions. If they had stopped at requiring employers to inform potential employees of the dangers of the job, that would have taken care of the problem. Let the potential employee decide if they want to accept the risk for the money paid. Then OSHA went WAY beyond reasonable and, like bureaucracies tend to do, came up with more and more they felt was needed, which led to more and more funding and regulation.

The EPA came into being because industry was poisoning the nation. Love Canal, Times Beach, rivers that caught on fire, raw sewage being dumped into oceans and rivers, acid rain killing forests. Most industries were good citizens and cared about what they did, but a few would do anything possible if it was cheaper. We need the EPA, but EPA, like OSHA, has done study after study that showed we needed more regulation and they needed more funding. I've learned that those who fund the studies tend to provide the answers to the research before the research is performed.

Not all government expansion is bad, but we have to make sure that when government intervention is the best option, that we limit the extent of that government involvement. That has not happened.

[wufan]

This has turned into one of the more entertaining threads of the offseason. I think we've mostly agreed that gun control is hitting your target - oh - and planting your shotgun frimly on your shoulder before pulling the trigger.

I've got to give a counter to one earlier post from wufan:

There are significant chunks of big government that at one time were needed functions of government. In the 1800's there were a lot of businessmen seeking to eliminate any competition for the goods or services they provided. That resulted in the regulation of monopolies and requiring government approval for acquisitions and mergers. That was probably a good way to expand government because the Capitalists had found ways to destroy the free market concept that our version of Capitalism is based on. That expansion of government seems to still work fairly well.

Then there's the expansion of government that's based on subjective evaluations. The easy examples are OSHA and the EPA.

Employers exposing workers to unsafe conditions was rampant prior to OSHA. Killing, wounding, and maiming workers was just considered part of the process of producing goods and services. OSHA's original purpose had good intentions. If they had stopped at requiring employers to inform potential employees of the dangers of the job, that would have taken care of the problem. Let the potential employee decide if they want to accept the risk for the money paid. Then OSHA went WAY beyond reasonable and, like bureaucracies tend to do, came up with more and more they felt was needed, which led to more and more funding and regulation.

The EPA came into being because industry was poisoning the nation. Love Canal, Times Beach, rivers that caught on fire, raw sewage being dumped into oceans and rivers, acid rain killing forests. Most industries were good citizens and cared about what they did, but a few would do anything possible if it was cheaper. We need the EPA, but EPA, like OSHA, has done study after study that showed we needed more regulation and they needed more funding. I've learned that those who fund the studies tend to provide the answers to the research before the research is performed.

Not all government expansion is bad, but we have to make sure that when government intervention is the best option, that we limit the extent of that government involvement. That has not happened.

Hopefully you were just using my post to expound your own thoughts. My comment was as a devils advocate since JH4P couldn't come up with anything.

[wufan]

Also, @Aargh:, I tend to agree with the gist of your post. There was a time when regulation was needed to defend against wrongful acts. Many of those regulatory bodies have transformed into self perpetuating drains on society, or as democrats would call it, "new jobs."

OTOH, large corporations utilize some regulatory bodies to create self-sustained growth by writing in laws and policies that prohibit the starter companies from getting a foothold in the business.

[Aargh]

Also, @Aargh, I tend to agree with the gist of your post. There was a time when regulation was needed to defend against wrongful acts. Many of those regulatory bodies have transformed into self perpetuating drains on society, or as democrats would call it, "new jobs."

OTOH, large corporations utilize some regulatory bodies to create self-sustained growth by writing in laws and policies that prohibit the starter companies from getting a foothold in the business.

Controlling the bodies the government has set up has been a major failure. I've got a great erxample. I'm going to put it into the Tax Policy thread because it fits better over there.

In this thread, I want to see MVJ admit that he needs more gun control.

[MoValley John]

In this thread, I want to see MVJ admit that he needs more gun control.

Yeah, I need more gun control, I have a bruise to prove it! I can't believe I didn't get the gun up in the pocket. I guess I need to hit the trap range two or three times before Thursday.

On,another note, yes, the unregistered firearm I used this week was a gift. When I first moved to Nebraska, I had never hunted. My boss asked me to go on a Saturday, I went, didn't hit anything but I was hooked! I had borrowed a shotgun from my Father in Law. That Christmas, my wife bought me a Wingmaster. I have since bought more shotguns, but I always fall back to the old 870 my wife bought me. I'm taking that gun and my 1187 duck hunting. I will probably only use the 870.

To summize, I used a high powered, unregistered firearm that I received from a straw purchase. I'm surprised South Dakota hasn't called a state emergency and activated the National Guard.

[Kung Wu]

Yeah, I need more gun control, I have a bruise to prove it! I can't believe I didn't get the gun up in the pocket. I guess I need to hit the trap range two or three times before Thursday.

On,another note, yes, the unregistered firearm I used this week was a gift. When I first moved to Nebraska, I had never hunted. My boss asked me to go on a Saturday, I went, didn't hit anything but I was hooked! I had borrowed a shotgun from my Father in Law. That Christmas, my wife bought me a Wingmaster. I have since bought more shotguns, but I always fall back to the old 870 my wife bought me. I'm taking that gun and my 1187 duck hunting. I will probably only use the 870.

To summize, I used a high powered, unregistered firearm that I received from a straw purchase. I'm surprised South Dakota hasn't called a state emergency and activated the National Guard.

Knew it! I bet you have listened to dangerous rap music in your youth, which also makes you a gangsta. Are you a hardcore NWA man, Ice-T, or L.L. Cool J, homie?

[MoValley John]

Knew it! I bet you have listened to dangerous rap music in your youth, which also makes you a gangsta. Are you a hardcore NWA man, Ice-T, or L.L. Cool J, homie?

I once owned the DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince CD titled "He's the DJ, I'm the Rapper"

I think I was going through a rebellious phase.

[MoValley John]

https://youtu.be/jW3PFC86UNI

I've outgrown my rebellious side, but that rap never gets old!