POTUS plea to respectable gun owners to support "common sense" gun laws

[pudly]

Knowing who owns what gun does nothing to hamper any illegal gun trade. Criminals don't register their gun purchases. Nor do they submit to a background check before they steal a gun or buy one out of the trunk of a car.

Precisely. Gun registration tracks guns of the law abiding, not criminals. It provides no benefits to identify criminals after a crime and states/nations (links Canada) that implemented registries often end up dropping them due to low benefit and high costs. They have their greatest "benefit" at confiscation time. It is a thoroughly evil idea and anyone that supports it is no friend of the 2A.

 

[churchmouse]

It leaves a record or lack of record of transfer. If that record is not there, guess what? You're an arms dealer. It wouldn't take long to discover who is slinging arms, because we could track where a firearm went dark, and prosecute the last know owner of the firearm. If a firearm gets stolen, its your personally responsibility to report it.

How in the hell is that going to happen. There is no structure in place and this will "Again" strip us of more freedoms. They are taking them a bit at a time and this would only fuel more.

 

[Twangbanger]

It leaves a record or lack of record of transfer. If that record is not there, guess what? You're an arms dealer. It wouldn't take long to discover who is slinging arms, because we could track where a firearm went dark, and prosecute the last know owner of the firearm. If a firearm gets stolen, its your personally responsibility to report it.

So how would this process operate? I'm not sure I understand how it could be done.

 

[Sigsauerosarus Rex]

This is what you want.

What Hillary wants, is to make it easier to SUE gun makers and dealers.

Careful what you ask for.

Hillary is not what I want. Firearms manufactures only produce firearms, they do not take any responsibility for how they are used. The only public safety measure I want is if a seller sells a firearm without a background check, they should be held accountable.

Look everyone, most of what I support aside from no exemptions on background checks expands firearm liberties. I want to see the industry of the illegal firearms trade hampered. Of course some illegal arms will get through the casual criminal gun dealer and his cronies is why we have second amendment rights as US citizens.

Armed security in that school at the very least would have made the criminal think twice about committing that atrocity, but the liberals block that. The school not being a gun free zone would have made it a harder target, again liberals blocked it. Again I support armed security in schools an no gun free zones.

 

[jamil]

I believe there should be zero gun laws.

There is no "gun law" that can do any more to protect society than the laws we already have against murder and assault. We can make it so hard for people to get guns legally that effectively the only way to get them at all is illegally. And that's the entire point of gun control.

What sort of "common sense" gun laws do you support?

Removal of gun free zones, federal reciprocal CCWs, A no-nonsense record of transfer of all firearms, background checks on ALL firearms transfers, and armed security in our schools.

The laws I support are aimed at creating accountability and responsibility of selling firearms in order to hamper the illegal arms trade (that is booming industry and we all know it); while expanding the liberties of respectable gun owners.

If you think universal background checks are "common sense", you've not spent enough time pondering the facts. The idea that background checks at all is an effective predictor of behavior across a diverse demographic is severely mistaken. Nearly all these mass shooters obtained their firearms legally. People look like law abiding citizens until they don't. Disqualifying people from owning firearms because they have a felony conviction casts too wide a net anyway.

And not only are background checks woefully ineffective, the idea of "universal" background checks is laughable. Look at Colorado. Their "universal" background check system hasn't proven very universal. It's been in place for a year and so far, the number of private sales going through the system is drastically lower than they predicted. They justified spending millions of dollars on this new system based on an assumption that 40% of all gun sales going through the system would be private. Guess what? It's ~4%. This means people aren't using it.

So think about the kinds of people who will follow the law and choose to do their sale using the background check system. It's like trying to filter distilled water. They're running backgrounds on squeaky clean boy scouts. The people they want to prohibit aren't likely to participate.

There's no way to enforce a universal background check without a universal registration. Canada couldn't even get that done. This is the US. We're not like Piers Morgan and the other Brits.

Knowing who owns what gun does nothing to hamper any illegal gun trade. Criminals don't register their gun purchases. Nor do they submit to a background check before they steal a gun or buy one out of the trunk of a car.

Any new gun law means that things that I can legally do today I would be put in jail for if I did those things after the law passed. And that's what Obama and the gun control lobby are saying to us. "You 'responsible' gun owners, I want to put you in jail for doing what you're doing today."

 

[flatlander]

Removal of gun free zones, federal reciprocal CCWs, A no-nonsense record of transfer of all firearms, background checks on ALL firearms transfers, and armed security in our schools.

1) Agree
2) Agree
3) I can keep my own records, if I choose. I make sure people are "proper persons" as defined per current law.
4) This is tantamount to registration. They have no need to know every move a weapon makes. My property, my right to sell as I see fit as long as I am following current law.
5) Agree

I'm not willing to have my rights infringed on due to some crazies. You DO realize that Chicago already has these "common sense" measures in place and they continue to have wholesale slaughter in their streets right?

Bob

 

[MCgrease08]

As usual, the Yankee Marshal sums it up better than I could.

[video=youtube_share;5y_080Jh1D4]http://youtu.be/5y_080Jh1D4[/video]

 

[Twangbanger]

Hillary is not what I want. Firearms manufactures only produce firearms, they do not take any responsibility for how they are used. The only public safety measure I want is if a seller sells a firearm without a background check, they should be held accountable.

Look everyone, most of what I support aside from no exemptions on background checks expands firearm liberties. I want to see the industry of the illegal firearms trade hampered. Of course some illegal arms will get through the casual criminal gun dealer and his cronies is why we have second amendment rights as US citizens.

Armed security in that school at the very least would have made the criminal think twice about committing that atrocity, but the liberals block that. The school not being a gun free zone would have made it a harder target, again liberals blocked it. Again I support armed security in schools an no gun free zones.

I didn't mean to make it look like you wanted Hillary. If that's the impression I gave, I apologize, because that's not what I mean (you can see from my avatar I'm a big Hillary fan, lol). My comment was oriented towards the fact that she is a lawyer, and therefore looks for lawyer-like ways of handling situations. Since the Congressional/Legislative routes to gun control are pretty closed at the moment, I can see tort law and suing manufacturers and dealers being a big part of the way Hillary approaches gun control. Something she and her Justice Dept. can do without going through Congress. Which is important, since she will likely be the next President.

What I was interested in is how the "accountability" part would work. Because I think with Hillary as President, we may well be seeing something like this in the future. How would the nuts and bolts of the seller-accountability thing work?

 

[Sigsauerosarus Rex]

Precisely. Gun registration tracks guns of the law abiding, not criminals. It provides no benefits to identify criminals after a crime and states/nations (links Canada) that implemented registries often end up dropping them due to low benefit and high costs. They have their greatest "benefit" at confiscation time. It is a thoroughly evil idea and anyone that supports it is no friend of the 2A.

Ok, let's say I walked off of Ft. Benning with my M240B, the gun is signed-out to me. I sell it to some low-life for $25,000. I walk back on and First Sergeant asks me where the gun is, and I say "I don't know." And he says "sounds legit, don't worry it's just lost." And I live happily ever after.

Yeah right. The fact that I'm signed for that gun means it is my personal responsibility, I'm the last know owner so obviously something shady happened.

My point is, if we made no exceptions for background checks, the last know owner would have some questions to answer if firearms registered to him started showing up in criminals hands, or if he had guns "stolen and lost" very often.

I'd appreciate if you did not question my patriotism or support of the second amendment, I have an Iraq Campaign Medal saying I put my life on the line for our rights to keep an bear arms.

 

[Twangbanger]

...My point is, if we made no exceptions for background checks, the last know owner would have some questions to answer if firearms registered to him started showing up in criminals hands, or if he had guns "stolen and lost" very often.

I'd appreciate if you did not question my patriotism or support of the second amendment, I have an Iraq Campaign Medal saying I put my life on the line for our rights to keep an bear arms.

How would background checks give you a record of who owns what gun? We currently have background checks, but those records are nominally discarded and the government doesn't know what I own.

 

[Arthur Dent]

It leaves a record or lack of record of transfer. If that record is not there, guess what? You're an arms dealer. It wouldn't take long to discover who is slinging arms, because we could track where a firearm went dark, and prosecute the last know owner of the firearm. If a firearm gets stolen, its your personally responsibility to report it.

Keeping track of who owns what is the first step in confiscation. If it's stolen from you then you report it as such. If you sell it you're no longer responsible.

 

[varkman]

I love the "common sense" statement, what is common sense to me, may not be common sense to the anti-gun doofus' and of course Obummer

 

[Arthur Dent]

Ok, let's say I walked off of Ft. Benning with my M240B, the gun is signed-out to me. I sell it to some low-life for $25,000. I walk back on and First Sergeant asks me where the gun is, and I say "I don't know." And he says "sounds legit, don't worry it's just lost." And I live happily ever after.

Yeah right. The fact that I'm signed for that gun means it is my personal responsibility, I'm the last know owner so obviously something shady happened.

My point is, if we made no exceptions for background checks, the last know owner would have some questions to answer if firearms registered to him started showing up in criminals hands, or if he had guns "stolen and lost" very often.

I'd appreciate if you did not question my patriotism or support of the second amendment, I have an Iraq Campaign Medal saying I put my life on the line for our rights to keep an bear arms.

If you walked off the base with that M240B I'd be willing to bet you already broke a law or some part of the military code, in which case you're already going to get what's coming. Not that I would sell any of my guns but if I did and the buyer did something illegal with that gun it's not on me. It's on the guy that did the crime. If you sell your car to someone and he promptly uses it to speed through a Catholic school zone killing thirty nuns and fifty kids are you responsible for that? After all, you did sell him the car.

 

[pudly]

I'd appreciate if you did not question my patriotism or support of the second amendment, I have an Iraq Campaign Medal saying I put my life on the line for our rights to keep an bear arms.

And I'd appreciate it if you don't support infringements on the second amendment. Giving aid and comfort to those who want to to restrict our gun rights doesn't make you a patriot. It makes you the problem. And your campaign medal doesn't shield you from criticism of your advocating violations of what you took an oath to uphold.

 

[printcraft]

Why yes, let's make deals to further **** away our rights with a known enemy of gun ownership and the Constitution!

What could go wrong here?


How about no more compromises?....... How about restoring rights already infringed?
Let's start there first with "respectable" members of government restoring "common sense" rights.

 

[Birds Away]

I'd appreciate if you did not question my patriotism or support of the second amendment, I have an Iraq Campaign Medal saying I put my life on the line for our rights to keep an bear arms.

The leftists love guys like you. An Iraq War vet who supports all of the mechanisms of gun confiscation. For them, that is like a dream come true.

 

[SSGSAD]

People keep talking about "common sense" gun laws but nothing they suggest makes any sense at all.

YES, I have been watching, learning, and participating, in "gun culture", for 49, of my 59 years .....

I have NOT seen one law passed, that would have STOPPED, any of the shootings, since 1994......

 

[flatlander]

Ok, let's say I walked off of Ft. Benning with my M240B, the gun is signed-out to me. I sell it to some low-life for $25,000. I walk back on and First Sergeant asks me where the gun is, and I say "I don't know." And he says "sounds legit, don't worry it's just lost." And I live happily ever after.

Yeah right. The fact that I'm signed for that gun means it is my personal responsibility, I'm the last know owner so obviously something shady happened.

My point is, if we made no exceptions for background checks, the last know owner would have some questions to answer if firearms registered to him started showing up in criminals hands, or if he had guns "stolen and lost" very often.

I'd appreciate if you did not question my patriotism or support of the second amendment, I have an Iraq Campaign Medal saying I put my life on the line for our rights to keep an bear arms.

Moronic example.
By walking off post with your weapon you have already broken numerous federal laws. Then you sold fed. property. 1SG wouldn't make that absurd statement.
Anybody that would buy the weapon wouldn't pass a background check anyway so that's not a valid point.
I recieved a letter from the FBI recently asking about a firearm I had purchased in 1988. I've moved several times since then but they still found the person who originally went thru the FFL to purchase it. They asked me about it and were told the truth that my ex got the weapon in the divorce. Case closed and have a nice day.
I follow due dilligence when I sell my property. I don't need you or anyone else to dictate what hoops I need to go thru.
If you sell your vehicle to somebody who you know may drink a little too much and he gets in an accident and kills somebody, are you liable?
Thanks for your service from an old retired Grunt.

Bob

 

[MadBomber]

Here are my 10 common-sense suggestions:

1. **** you, no more compromises
2. Repeal the NFA
3. **** you, no more compromises
4. Repeal the 68 GCA
5. See #1
6. Constitutional Carry
7. **** you really, really hard, no more compromises.
8. Automatic 50 year prison sentence for use of a firearm during a crime
9. That's right, **** you; no more compromises
10. Glocks are recognized as being better than 1911's

 

[pudly]

Here are my 10 common-sense suggestions:

1. **** you, no more compromises
2. Repeal the NFA
3. **** you, no more compromises
4. Repeal the 68 GCA
5. See #1
6. Constitutional Carry
7. **** you really, really hard, no more compromises.
8. Automatic 50 year prison sentence for use of a firearm during a crime
9. That's right, **** you; no more compromises
10. Glocks are recognized as being better than 1911's

Mostly good, but I definitely have to disagree with #8. There is no moral justification for it. Murder is equally bad if done with a knife, gun, poison, etc. Armed robbery is equally bad if done with a knife, gun, crowbar, etc. Punish the act, not the tool.

#10 is subject to local (as in home-level) jurisdiction.