You're talking in circles here.
Gun sales made by dealers at gun shows are required to undergo background checks per state and federal law, because they are *dealers*.
Private sales, arranged by two individuals who meet at a gun show, are not covered under federal law because it is a private sale.
So either you want universal background checks (federal requirement for private sales), or you're fine with the current system.
The "gun show loophole" is a complete misnomer because a gun show doesn't magically exempt dealers or anyone else from federal background check requirements.
The gun show is merely a convenient avenue for private sales to occur.
Hilariously, you could have bolded "I'm fine with the current system" and yet you chose the more obtuse response.Which Im fine with.
Hilariously, you could have bolded "I'm fine with the current system" and yet you chose the more obtuse response.
You don't want UBC, that's fine. But christ almighty say so and make an argument for that position.
Much!My case is exactly how I stated. Im fine with existing background checks, for dealers. Am opposed for private sales. Is that clearer?
What's the purpose of having a background check process that's so easily defeated?My case is exactly how I stated. Im fine with existing background checks, for dealers. Am opposed for private sales. Is that clearer?
What's the purpose of having a background check process that's so easily defeated?
Make them required for all firearm transfers. No exceptions.How would you change the background checks?
Make them required for all firearm transfers. No exceptions.
Right, you're enlightened, that's why you desire a suppressor.
Dunno how progressive you are, or libertarian, but at the end of this very close to TLDR post, you defer to your rights being whatever the SCOTUS says they are. doesn't sound very libertarian to me.
If your sample size is the human race, then sure...it's obvious that very many people don't have this "inner good". As evidenced by our history perpetrating violence onto each other en masse. Not only that, but humans can commit terrible atrocities in the name of what they think is "good", and they still have the ability to rationalize it internally.
I do find it funny that you're the one complaining about what you can and cannot own in firearm hardware, but discussing why you would even need to own any of it as someone else's problem.
I mean, if you perceived others as having this inner good, then you wouldn't really need any firearms at all.
You demonstrated your humanity, nothing to be ashamed of. It's obvious to me that firearms are an emotional thing for you. You can try to project onto me if you want, like it's my problem, but that's your issue, not mine.
I'm human just like everyone else. When I encounter people, some of them give me a strange vibe that starts to stir that fight or flight response. However, most of the time, that's not the case. So it's fine to say that some people create a fear response, but it's not accurate to blanket statement that like you did here.
In terms of state gun laws: we can disagree, then, on what common sense really means. Common sense IMO means reasonable accommodations relative to the situation. Firearms are very good at their job, killing. It seems to me, common sense would include locking them up when not in use, especially if there's young persons around. That is not a rule of thumb everywhere in America, but it should be.
Waiting 10 days or owning a suppressor is just your desire. It's not required for self defense, and it's not even in the 2A (neither is self defense).
Whatever dude, this entire back and forth was generated by basic numbers showing firearm related deaths in the age group 1-24 overtaking car deaths. The numbers reveal that in the last 20 years, car deaths have come down a lot due to regulation, and it's likely firearm deaths have increased because the lack of regulations.
If personal responsibility were such an American pillar of society, this wouldn't be the case.
Incorrect all around. You wish it to be true, but it's not.
So because people break the law, it means your 2A rights are violated? lol, do you hear yourself?
Interesting, I wonder if you defer to all SCOTUS decisions so effortlessly. I'm curious if you will do the same when Roe vs. Wade is rolled back.
Nice how you want to follow the red states down the civil war path, while somehow rationalizing that you're enlightenment means you see humans as inherently good.
Anyways, good talk moonie, turns out you're human after all, with some of the same human traits as your fellow americans.
Those mean ole democrats, not allowing a suppressor.
Besides concealing a gun shot in a crime, there's not real world scenario that requires a suppressor. You use hearing protection whenever practicing, I'm sure. So the thousands of rounds spent doing that don't need one. And in a life or death self defense scenario, you're not going to be firing magazines. Crime is the only scenario I can come up with that one would want a suppressor.
It's clear from this particular response that you are biased and emotional regarding this topic...Your 2A freedoms are still intact though, as suppressor's aren't mentioned at all in the 2A
Wow dude, just wow. Those are you're problems?
In terms of state gun laws: we can disagree, then, on what common sense really means. Common sense
You don't have to be enlightened to desire a suppressor, You just have to have compassion for your and other people's hearing. A suppressor helps to reduce the concussive force of the pressure wave created by a fired cartridge from dangerous to semi tolerable levels at a gun range for others or yourself is shooting alone. It is a safety device. It reduces both accuracy and projectile velocity..
I am not so libertarian as to imagine myself above the law when it comes to the purchase of weapons. I would not and don't know how to obtain guns illegally. I believe gun laws should be uniform across all states but I am stuck with California laws. I got a kick out of a purchase I made yesterday, legal in California, but not able to be shipped to Massachusetts residences.
As I have told you a million times, you can't trust because you have not had the requisite experience that can be had from a particular altered state of consciousness. You see people as your conscious experience allows you to see them. You understanding is that humans are what you see them to be. But because you have not experienced something revolutionary within your consciousness only what you can see is what you get. People are capable of great evil but you can't say why. You see that as their reality, their real nature and that makes your life very simple, black and white.
The fact is that humanity is sick with the disease of self hate and that is what makes them evil. They have been made to believe evil exists and act accordingly when they are told that is what they are. You are stuck in that world and are trapped by that world view. There is a difference between being simply evil and having a mental disease that tells you you are. There is no answers to the dilemma in your world view but there is in mine. The answer is easy-peasy, heal. But that's where it gets rough.
Firearms are not the issue. The issue is how do we address evil. You limit the solution to gun violence to exclusively to techniques that do not address the core of the problem. I do not object to many aspects of such attempts, reasonable gun regulation, only its exclusivity without address of the underlying social issues. As for the rest of this section of your reply I can make no sense of how it relates to what I said.
I tend to agree but I would prefer to have children around who have been educated on the danger of firearms and are raised in a way that internalizes a sense of duty to live responsibly. They certainly should be kept out of the reach of small children and be available enough to older children so that they are not curious to want to explore handling them having been allowed to under supervision. The hitch is that, if the purpose of owning a gun is self defense, then the gun is always on duty and having it locked away unloaded and separate from ammunition defeats that purpose.
Suppressors are legal in 42 states, not in yours or mine. To own one requires a tax and a lengthy waiting period i believe. I have no problem if the state wants to make laws that outlaw suppressors in the commission of crimes or extra penalties when used. I object to the fact that they can't be used period where I am even to protect people's hearing at a gun range of personally when legally shooting alone. The reasons suppressors are banned may have been related to poaching, so ban them for that but not for everybody who wants to use them to protect their hearing or disturb the neighbors. Stupid laws create resentment for stupid law makers. I hope the Supreme Court one day outlaws a blanket ban.
The purpose of cars is to get from point A to point B and doing so safely is a feature. The purpose of guns is to kill. To make them less deadly is a defect to anybody who owns them for self defense. Self defense is a natural right. Where successful a person who has a worse case of self hate may die at the hands of someone who would never initiate such an attack unprovoked. This is a win for everybody in my opinion.
Tou wish to believe that some people are just evil without any explanation as to why that is but the symplistic statement that's just how it is. If it is true that humanity is asleep living in a wrong world, deluded by illusion of duality to believe in good and evil, then your worldview is simply wrong. There is no way to prove my case except by experience you seem not to have had. I do what I can to show you what is wrong with your thinking. That's it.
I hear myself. Apparently you do not. I did not say my 2A rights are being violated. I am saying that because they exist and theoretically can't be violated that means no restrictions applied to me will prevent others from using guns to intentionally kill people because they save the same rights too. Guns are and attempts to regulate them, all well and good when dealing with who owns them etc. will not stop the intent some have to kill other people. They have a disease that regulation will not treat and that is where the focus should be, in my opinion.
What else would I do. I have one vote to try to keep Republicans out of office so they can't appoint judges. To rule against Roe vs Wade would be a titanic mistake in my opinion, whereas conservative 2M interpretations would be welcomed in my opinion. I do not hope for much, however, because as it is currently, Democratic states are disarming themselves and Red states are loading up, which I think suits the court just fine.
Yes you think that way because you believe that people are just evil willy nilly rather than infected with a cureable disease. Therefore you can't understand that when people who are sick act out their mental illness in a manner that harms innocent people others have the right to defend themselves against being punished for someone elses disease. It is a natural right to protect the innocent from the acting out mentally ill.
Your understanding of human traits does not include an understanding possible with a psychological experience that collapses the delusion of duality.
Your statement here shows you know jack shit about shooting and guns, and this is the problem with democrats and their attempts to address gun regulation and public safety.
Ds start at a position of ignorance, claim their aim is to protect the public, then just pass laws that have little to do with safety and more geared to just being cunts because you think all gun owners are Republicans and here's where you can do some culture war FUs.
Regulation can certainly treat the symptoms, that's fact.
Ok, so deferring to the SCOTUS decision works when it suits your emotional attachment.
Obvious load of bs. I'm never even implied such a thing. You should probably start reading.
Right, I'm not enlightened like you. lol.
Quite right. Have you any idea how the Post Office used to treat its workers and how little they were paid. Probably still do. They couldn't even strike although some of them did. The same process of disregard for human dignity that keeps laying out people on the streets. Fix the system. Give people the feeling they are needed and wanted in life and everything regarding gun violence will change.Your argument just boils down to that classic joke before there were meme's: "guns don't kill people, postal workers do"
Yea, gun need an operator. And you focus is on that only. Mine's on both the operator and the device.
I don't disagree with that. My point is that there are regulations and there are regulations, some sound and full of common sense and others based on fear and misunderstanding and indifference to other people capacity to exercise responsibility. I think, therefore, that laws based on sound reasoning and ones based of fear are easily distinguishable by unbiased and well informed people, people that is who do not come into the argument full of emotional fears.
No, We all must defer to any SCOTUS decision like it or not.
I have suggested that some things I say will not make sense to you because of the difference in our perspectives. You state clearly and over and over that regulations are required to prevent evil people from being able to do bad deeds. But you can't explain why they are evil and knowing why changes everything.
Regulations can do nothing to fix evil behavior and that is what needs fixing. You rely on fear and punishment to make you feel safe. Not going to work. You are not focused on the source of the disease only how it manifests, trying to limit that.
Yes you are; you just don't know it. It would be nice if you did.
Quite right. Have you any idea how the Post Office used to treat its workers and how little they were paid. Probably still do. They couldn't even strike although some of them did. The same process of disregard for human dignity that keeps laying out people on the streets. Fix the system. Give people the feeling they are needed and wanted in life and everything regarding gun violence will change.
Actually I want to go much further making changes to society than the gun laws you favor. I want a revolution in how society operates. I am a progressive not a manipulator of symptoms to assuage my irrational fears. Look at our world from the point of view that every person in it was created in the image of God and then tell me the issue isn't that people hate that God within.
Sure, but you might want to reign in those emotions.
Maybe not so libertarian there then
Republican's don't wanna, and create change with it. Think about that for a few.
No Moonie, that's you telling me what I'm saying, when I have not used those words. Like you, helping people is what I think should be a priority. Poor mental health yields poor societal behavior. You use words like "good" and "evil", which are very subjective. You use them because your "enlightened" and feel very sure of yourself. But at the same time, reveal your humanity on this topic.
You once talked about your death of ego, but yours murdered you old selfs and consumed it. Now it's massive
Again, not reading at all. Unlike you, it seems, I can put my attention on both. Helping people, and common sense gun regulations. You only care about one of those, and if / when it doesn't work you'll just be like "oh well, I told ya what to do, maybe if you we're enlightened like me then you'd see it too and be successful"
it was tongue in cheek.
Go for it! Let me know when you have some ideas to go along with the ideals.
lol, oh man thanks. I had forgotten about your religious piece already.
I mean, restructuring America won't happen without destroying it. So good luck with that.
Let me know if you have some more ideas to go along with this that doesn't involve your totally progressive and not authoritarian perspective
I know you are but what am I?
I used the word libertarian as opposed to authroitarian to distinguish bewtween two different mind sets, one of which views humanity as essentially good, possessed of inalienable rights, created in the image of God, freeable from the delusion of duality, having a the potential to experience mystical transformative conscious state, etc, as opposed to the view that humanity is basically evil or always egotistically self centered and requiring fear of punishment to keep in line, regulations, imposed control, you name it.
Submission to the rule of law is how the empty of real self respect manage society. Society, owing to the way we structure it and it structures us, is full of such people. In order to change that we will need a Supreme court full of libertarians of the type I describe.
You are with them there on that. There is a distinction with little difference in my mind between conservative who hope for retrogression and liberals who want to tweak the system.
I am very certain that if you set out to prove there is a good and an evil and to define what they are you will fail because they do not in fact exist. You will arrive at the realization that life is absolutely good-and-evil meaningless. This experience should tell you that all of your dreams of bring meaning to life will be completely useless, all of your attempts to impose order for the sake of the better delusional, hopeless, and bound to failure. You will, if sincere in your attempt, come to the end of hope's rope. Where do you go from there. You will not know unless you arrive there yourself to find out. Why would I not be sure. When you have lost all that can be taken what is left can't be. No words can tell other the value of that treasure that is your true self. What I hope for is to tell you the value of your own humanity. I already saw the value of mine.
Here's wishing you the same.
When I read what you say I read it from a perspective different from the one that you write in. So it will look to you that I am not reading what you write because it isn't what you write that matters but the perspective from which you present it. My challenge isn't to what you are saying but the the perspective from which you present it. Your words reveal to me an authoritarian approach, both to how to regulate guns and how to help human suffering.
I read the perspective in which that is true. "If I didn't have bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." Both tongue and cheek but also the absolute truth about how we all really feel. You do not know that as truth but I do. Naturally is is very egotistical to know things, right? I would try to be more modest but I already unlearned everything I thought I knew. What I haven't been able to successfully do is to unlearn the lies I was taught to feel. But I do know what they are.
LOL, My ideas are to help anyone reading who wants to see. Surely you didn't think a person with the biggest ego on earth was wasting his time sharing my impressions with you for egotistical reasons. What could an ant like you possibly buy me.
You certainly did. It doesn't fit with your authoritarian world view.
Your pessimism is well earned. I decided to start destroying the country one wrong world view at a time starting with you and you can see the luck I am having.
Let me know when you are ready.
What do you want to bet the guy believes you are not supposed to walk your dog on the golf course. I would almost be willing to take such a bet, but I don't know for sure.People are supposed to mature with age, no?
Senior Shoots, Beats Neighbor With Club for Walking Dog on Golf Course
Stunned retirees who saw the attack unfold from their balconies described the chain of events to sheriff's deputies.
...