Fuck those guys they're nuts, it should be the FBI in charge of such a thing if we were to do it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
President Barack Obama preparing to issue Executive Order on gun control
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
Fuck those guys they're nuts, it should be the FBI in charge of such a thing if we were to do it.
Limited Edition
Banned
12 gauge, pump action. If the sound of that fucker being chambered doesn't scare them off, the blank sure as hell should.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
If it's just to close the gun show loophole then I don't really care cause I don't go to gun shows and it is stupid that hasn't been fixed. The real bummer is that now gun prices are going to go through the roof... again.
mmazurkiewicz
Member
Xdrive05
Member
I just need a Mossberg 500 combo first. Just hold off a little longer, Demand!
If the president purchased a bunch of firearm manufacturing stocks, would that be considered insider trading?
Mad Season
Banned
Stop. So many good officers out there who never are on the news
TheTurboFD
Member
I don't even understand this "Gun Show Loophole". Can someone explain this to me? From a google search it pulls up that people can buy guns at gun shows with no background check. First that's far from the truth, every dealer there has to call for a background check. They cannot sell a gun without it. The only way you can buy guns from a gun show with no check is if you purchase the gun from another person who lives in the same state (and not an FFL holder) and it's not a handgun. Even then that's not even a loophole, that's completely legal and is no different than meeting somewhere else and purchasing it.
Xdrive05
Member
Close enough to think hard about before jumping on board with Obama's E.O's. just because he's "our guy".
The way things have been going in this country, I would think twice before supporting any expansion of presidential authority or executive branch authority in general.
You guys might be praying on bent knee for a Donald Trump at some point in the future, compared to who could be sitting there in a decade or two.
Edit: Executive orders are not an Obama thing exclusively, to be certain. I'm just saying I don't think we should support such methods without consideration of the implications.
O.v.e.rlord
Banned
Shit! I bet there is a large ass fire ball at the end of that boom stick! lol
Halcyon
Member
You got it right. People saying 'just close the gun show loophole' probably don't know what it is.
Maybe share a little bit of that concern with dealing with an obstructionist congress for so long and how this is as far as I can tell the only way anything can change on the matter.
I mean, this right now is at attempt to put gun ownership under the same "scrutiny" as car ownership (such a favored comparison iirc), as well as an attempt to deal with one of the most obvious loopholes around (I was gonna say dangerous too, but thinking about it more, I think willfully remaining ignorant on behavior based studies and information is so much worse than it's nothing in comparison)
Maybe somewhere down the line there will be a slightly more outrageous executive order than now, but I think it's kind of dishonest to frame this discussion around worry being placed more on precedent than what the order is actually accomplishing regarding gun laws when all but nothing has been done despite what has happened regarding shootings nationwide.
Maybe work on that gun lobbying and general gun misinformation first? I for one feel pretty ignorant myself (about many things...) regarding general gun statistics and such, but it's pretty amazing how little studies there are about the most basic of information. Of course we aren't gonna learn anything.
No, only Congress can re-activate the draft.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You seem to be confused. Loopholes are legal. That's kind of the point.
I don't need a gun in the same way that you don't need a PS4. They're a hobby and that's it. I live in one of the safest places in the country, so self-defense isn't really a concern. However I do hunt, collect (my grandpa has a collection of every model of Winchester lever-action rifle ever made that he's slowly passing on to me), and enjoy target shooting with my friends. When not in use my guns are locked up. I grew up being taught the value of gun safety and responsibility and I take that very seriously, especially when shooting with people who don't have as much experience with guns.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
So the Dems proposed a federal gun buyback ? Well ok give me $5000 dollars for each and they can have my AR's. I'll just go buy something bigger and better.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
I like them because they're fun as all hell to shoot. It's a hobby. What's not to like about letting lose 30 rounds of 556 from a carbine ? And nah I like to be around guns, I grew up around them. I shot my first gun about 8 years ago when I was 11 years old and have been hooked every since. Try it someday and you'll love it.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Is it like the same feeling people who like to start fires get?
Above poster carries handguns around in his shorts pocket.
The upside of a gun buyback is he'd be able to pay the medical bills from when the gun eventually goes off in his leg.
TheTurboFD
Member
You seem to be confused. There is no loophole.
The ridiculous thing is, what you've just admitted to could be prosecuted as a felony discharge of a weapon. It can, and has, been prosecuted, although it is up to the discretion of the prosecutor and the police to do so.
Warning shots? Blanks? Shooting to injure? Firing these are not acceptable, or legal, uses of weapons, or justifications for one's actions. The only "proper" use of a firearm (legally or illegally) outside of a sporting context is for the act of homicide/attempted homicide. Anything else, the law says guns are not valid tools to use, that the use of a gun is excessive.
We recognize the mechanical destructive power of firearms this way. The problem I have is that we do not recognize the human/life destructive power of firearms. We rely on the honor system rather than proper registration, licensing, psychological profiles, and other regulations, to ensure safety. The modern courts view it as a right, not as a privilege, despite acknowledging the mechanical power by discouraging any non-homicidal context of usage. And there is a culture of fear and civil religion which had made guns and ammunition sacred in the eyes of millions. All of this is completely irresponsible, and it manifests in the form of violence and insecurities on a scale and frequency unseen in any other developed nation. Other countries have been able to overcome this. The UK. Australia. I want the US to make these same strides, for the sake of us. For the sake of those around us. Not because I want to take away anyone's rights, but becacuse I want to protect them.
My reading of the whole amendment does allow for an armed citizenry... as long as there is need for and continued maintenance of well regulated militias. Today that continues to hold true. There is a well regulated militia, therefore the rights of citizens to keep arm is uninfringed.
If we completely apply both segments to mean the citizenry itself, as you say, then I think it actually falters a bit. I think we'd actually have grounds to take people's guns away if we don't think they meet the standard of being "well regulated"... and lots of people can be argued to fall under that.
Private party sellers are not required to perform background checks. This can change from state to state but the federal law does not require it and most states don't either.
If I have a bunch of guns I want to sell here in Louisiana I can rent a table at a gun show and sell to another private citizen in my state without any background check or registration.
That is the loophole.
How many people responsible for mass shootings were criminals/lawbreakers before they took that first shot?
How many career criminals go and shoot up cinemas, shopping centres and schools, killing innocent people?
Yes, criminals, if they want them, will get guns. Even in Australia with our gun control, they can get them if they want them.
You want to protect the innocent? Stop giving Crazy Joe easy access to the tools he needs to become a mass murdering lawbreaker in the first place.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Because I want to and because I can. Living in a completely free American society has both its benefits and consequences. But I would rather live here than any where else on earth.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
TheTurboFD
Member
How is that a loop hole? It's no different than going to gunlistings or armslist and setting up a meet. A loophole is a way to circumvent something, you're not circumventing anything.
Limited Edition
Banned
Finding a gun safety course isn't exactly difficult. Most gun stores will have info on where to go and when.
Hell, when I was in junior high we had a mandatory gun safety course. Which should be in every school really.
I live in a Castle Law state, the use of blanks is perfectly legal. Whats hilarious really is that the use of rubber bullets can land you in far more trouble than actually killing an intruder. You would think it would be the other way around, but its not.
Poodlestrike
Banned
What a dumb question.
Who wouldn't want to go to Mars?
I mean, that one way trip they were advertising a little while back wasn't terribly appealing, but so long as I could come back, totally.
RealityCheque
Banned
Buy some stock in Smith & Wesson. Make a fortune as they sell an all time record over the next 18 months.
.
Stay armed America. A well armed population is the last, best defence against a tyrannical government.
.
Stay armed America. A well armed population is the last, best defence against a tyrannical government.
1.) an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.
The loophole - similar to a person able to evade taxes - allows a person to avoid a background check. circumvent registration. It is an inadequacy in the intent of the law which is to prevent people who should have access to a gun, this loophole gives them an easy avenue to do as such.
Whence cometh tyranny?
Ingueferroque
Banned
You just sound insane to me.
TheTurboFD
Member
It would only be ambiguous if it was a law that can be misinterpreted. You can't misinterpret a law that states that only FFLs are required to do background checks.
Background checks are almost instant. The only waiting period you have is when the gun requires a tax stamp such as suppressors and SBRs (short barreled rifles). There is no registration of guns either except in hawaii and DC I believe. Some states I believe require registration for handguns but then again you have to go through an FFL to transfer anyway.
Waiting periods have been overturned as unconstitutional, and there is no federal registration law(and only a few state ones, and in those states private sales are already illegal) to circumvent.
The law was never intended to cover private face to face intrastate sales because it is questionable whether those are within the federal government's powers to regulate, so it's not a loophole.
appaws
Banned
We will. And when Trump suspends the constitution and makes himself President for life, I will have extras ready for JonM, PBY, and Hyperion.
You are trying to turn this into some sort of semantic argument. To what end I don't really know?
What the current law allows can very much be considered a "loophole" in the oxford dictionary sense of the word. I even gave you the definition and clarified how it fits.
It is not about the law being ambiguous, that is not what a loophole has to be.
Funny that the people most likely to use that argument of needing their guns to battle the boogeyman government are the guys typically most drawn to fascist style leaders.
Just a stray observation.
Neocon. Cries against tyrannical government. Supports fascistic government leadership.
I know I never feel quite as completely free as when I see random people walking around town with guns on their person for no real practical reason.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
I never implied such a thing. Way to take my response WAY out of proportion.
I'm just saying that "free" means different things to different people.
It's no stray observation. The mentality that drives someone to arm themselves against nebulous and imaginary dangers is the same one that drives people to flock to fascism and other forms of tyrannical governments that supposedly protects society from the same thing but on a larger scale. You should read more about the background of Timothy McVeigh to get a real world example of this phenomenon. It's pretty remarkable how McVeigh viewpoints mirror a lot of the same viewpoints of various posters on this thread.
I just don't understand how people think it's ok to give up all the guns and leave law enforcement with lethal weapons. I'd never be okay with that. If we'ere talking about getting rid of guns then police need to have their guns removed too. How can you just expect people to give up their power when the people who are supposed to protect them aren't any better than legally sanctioned gangs.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Some people are statists. They believe in the power and benevolence of the state. To them government is their friend and would never ever ever do anything bad to them. So the state having guns is ok.
The UK does just fine with that, thank you very much.
- Status