Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ATC1
- Start date
BowieMercs
Footballguy
Koya
Footballguy
Looking to provide a better approach on BOTH fronts is so utterly clear to so many of us (including those like me that want to provide for as much freedom to own arms as possible, but not when those freedom's infringe on my rights, specifically to life, not to mention liberty and pursuit of happiness) that it's disconcerting when there's not an acknowledgement that our current laise faire system is an utter failure.
Unless a mass murder a day, as many gun related deaths as car deaths, unless sandy hook and I can go on are ok with you. Because that's clearly the result. The desire for some to have unfettered rights to guns without any better system of education, monitoring, training and registration - the refusal to look into any of that seriously shows very clearly that, on this issue, the rights for some folks to have continued unfettered access as we have today is clearly more important than the lives that have been and will be lost.
Now, if someone is willing to come out and just admit that - that yes, horrible as Sandy Hook is, and as scary the numbers of gun deaths in the U.S. compared to just about any other 1st world nation in the world, it's not as important as you keeping not just rights to gun ownership, but without even looking into the recommendations I listed above (and others).
Not sure how else we can see it? You'd rather preserve the right for people to threaten and in many instances infringe on rights / kill others as opposed to looking to create a better and more responsible system of private gun ownership.
ATC1
Footballguy
You act as though nothing has been done since Sandy Hook. There have been a number of changes to legislature on a state by state level. Maybe no one will give in on a national level until we see what states fair better with their changes.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
The situation is tragic, no doubt. However It's frustrating to me to see 95% (or more) of the dialogue being about increasing laws and tightening regulations on law abiding citizens, when existing laws are rendered toothless by the justice system when criminals violate them.
You want balance? Cool.. let's spend as much time discussing how we plan to amend the enforcement of laws as we do making new ones. You guys willing to sign on for that? Cool... then et's play catch-up. By my estimation the next 150 or so pages are now designated for justice system and enforcement reform.
Go.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
And things have not exactly gotten BETTER yet, have they (understanding it's not much time overall).
The fact that we don't have a national consensus, albeit implemented by the States, on certain training and registration and follow up / monitoring of arms is, imo, appalling and says a lot about some people's priorities. I don't mean that to be inflammatory (I do that plenty here, but not in the mood, this is serious), but I see so many willingly stand in the way of just common sense and easily implementable measures that could and likely would save thousands, tens of thousands, of lives.
I mean, tens of thousands of ####### lives vs. fear over registering your damn gun and showing you are competent at using, storing, cleaning etc? You do that for a car, and a car is not DESIGNED to kill people. When buying something that is there to KILL people, let's care enough about all the innocents killed to make sure the owner is responsible.
Anyone in the way of that, imo, puts their personal position above the lives of thousands and it's hard to see it any other way anymore. I had been more aligned with gun rights a few years back, and while at root I still am (it's an essential freedom for many reasons), reality has shown too deadly for me to not demand faster and more comprehensive action.
So, what has really changed? Yes, in some states there are stricter laws. I'd prefer they be more about registration than restriction, but we are at the beggars can't be choosers point here. And, fwiw, those states have significant less gun deaths (dont have the source, deal with it folks)
Koya
Footballguy
YES!!!!
That is EXACTLY what I want. Because, again, I want to preserve as much freedom as possible, in all ways - including gun ownership. So long as that freedom does not infringe upon the rights / freedoms of another (then we gotta figure it out).
What you say is a THOUSAND times correct. I see it at the municipal level. We have a lot of overcrowding in rental homes and properties around here, mostly Latino / Hispanic. People go up in arms, it then becomes ripe with anti-immigrant and racial issues, along with legitimate concerns about safety of families, especially children.
So for lots of reasons, legit and other, people yell how we need new laws and need to punish the landlords, the renters blah blah.
There are ALREADY laws on the books that prevent this. We just don't enforce. That said, we may also need new laws that are based on today's reality, not 250 years of building web upon web of band aid changes.
So yes, let's talk both. I will stand firm that we need far more effort to ensure that only responsible people own guns, because we see many law abiding IDIOTS who endanger their families, kids, friends kids, etc. They have lost the right to own a weapon designed to kill, and we need to a way to better monitor, ala car registration or other liscences.
But we also need to utilize existing law, and for whatever new regulations exist, a fair means to execute that as well. Yes, easier said than done.
[icon]
Insoxicated
If there wasn't already multiple precedents for the government using registration records to confiscate firearms, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be quite the resistance toward such a policy. As it stands now? #### you if you think I'm getting my name on any government checklist I don't have to be on.
I have some guns that are registered to me via FFL transfer. I have some I purchased through private sale or trade that aren't. I assure you, my confidence level in the government to NOT #### such a progam up doesn't exactly have me rushing to register anything. And again... when generally law abiding citizens refuse to comply with registration demands, even when threatened with felonies.... do you gun-registry backers REALLY think the grey or black market purchases will register them? Come ON
Gun registration is an hopeless and ineffective resource black hole.
Now training? I'm all for that.
ATC1
Footballguy
I am on record here for being all for self defense and saftey classes. Having a license to own a gun. However, I don't think a registery will be feasable, followed or help the murder rate in this nation.
glock
"Don't grumble, give a whistle!"
Last edited by a moderator:
netnalp
Footballguy
What are the firearms possession rules for non-U.S. citizens?
It is a class C felony for any person who is not a citizen of the United States to carry or possess any firearm, unless the person: 1) Is a lawful permanent resident; 2) has obtained a valid alien firearm license pursuant to RCW 9.41.173; or 3) meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.175.
A citizen of Canada may carry or possess any firearm so long as he/she possesses: Valid entry documentation, an approved U.S. Department of Justice ATF-6 NIA application and permit for temporary importation of firearms and ammunition by nonimmigrant aliens—if required under federal law, a valid hunting license, or an invitation to participate in a trade show or sport-shooting event being conducted in Washington or in close proximity.
A nonimmigrant alien, who is not a resident of Washington or a citizen of Canada, may carry or possess any firearm without having first obtained an alien firearm license if the nonimmigrant alien possesses: A valid passport and visa showing he/she is in the country legally, an approved U.S. Department of Justice ATF-6 NIA application and permit for temporary importation of firearms and ammunition by nonimmigrant aliens—if required under federal law, a valid hunting license, or an invitation to participate in a trade show or sport-shooting event being conducted in Washington or in close proximity.
-------------------
From 2011:
Rules Eased on Gun Sales to Noncitizens
WASHINGTON — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is relaxing restrictions on the sale of guns to noncitizens because Justice Department lawyers have concluded that the rules had no legal basis, officials said on Thursday.
In a letter to firearms dealers on Thursday, the bureau said it would soon drop a regulation that bars the sale of guns to noncitizens until they can document that they have lived in a state for at least 90 days, such as by producing three months of utility bills in their name at a local address.
While citizens, too, must generally be residents of a state in order to buy weapons there, the 90-day rule does not apply to them. The letter said the Justice Department had concluded that the Gun Control Act does not empower the A.T.F. to impose a stricter requirement on noncitizen gun buyers.
“Once the regulations have been revised, both U.S. citizens and aliens legally present in the U.S. will be subject to the same requirements for state residency and proof of residency,” the A.T.F. said in the letter.
The announcement drew criticism from some advocates of gun control measures, including Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who said that it “defies common sense and puts Americans at risk” because it could make it easier for foreign terrorists to obtain weapons inside the United States.
The Justice Department, however, said that A.T.F. regulations had to be compatible with the plain text of the Gun Control Act. The agency is in the process of replacing a longstanding “interim” regulation for gun sales to noncitizens with a final rule, which led to a fresh review by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
This month, the department published an October memorandum by the Office of Legal Counsel that said another aspect of the A.T.F.’s regulations went too far. It was a rule carrying out a section of the Gun Control Act that generally bars “aliens” who have “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” from buying or possessing weapons.
Congress had added that restriction in 1998, a year after a Palestinian visitor shot several people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building. But the A.T.F. rule went further than the statute by applying the ban to all nonimmigrant visitors — including those from several dozen Western countries whose citizens do not need a visa to visit the United States, like Canada and Britain.
In the memorandum — disclosed to the public on Dec. 8 — Virginia Seitz, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, said the A.T.F. regulation could not go further than the statute specified. For that reason, she said, the bureau must cancel any pending investigations premised “on the view that the statute applies to all nonimmigrant aliens, regardless of visa status.”
Nonimmigrant visitors to the United States who entered without a visa would still have to meet other requirements to buy a weapon — including establishing that they are residents, such as by obtaining a driver’s license with a local address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was curious about this subject with the recent concern with terrorists sneaking into countries amongst refugees. Should non-citizens be allowed to purchase firearms? I can see an exception made for Canadians like there is now so they can do hunting.
I don't think banning refugees is the way to go and neither is internment camps like the government did to the Japanese during WWII.
It is a class C felony for any person who is not a citizen of the United States to carry or possess any firearm, unless the person: 1) Is a lawful permanent resident; 2) has obtained a valid alien firearm license pursuant to RCW 9.41.173; or 3) meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.175.
A citizen of Canada may carry or possess any firearm so long as he/she possesses: Valid entry documentation, an approved U.S. Department of Justice ATF-6 NIA application and permit for temporary importation of firearms and ammunition by nonimmigrant aliens—if required under federal law, a valid hunting license, or an invitation to participate in a trade show or sport-shooting event being conducted in Washington or in close proximity.
A nonimmigrant alien, who is not a resident of Washington or a citizen of Canada, may carry or possess any firearm without having first obtained an alien firearm license if the nonimmigrant alien possesses: A valid passport and visa showing he/she is in the country legally, an approved U.S. Department of Justice ATF-6 NIA application and permit for temporary importation of firearms and ammunition by nonimmigrant aliens—if required under federal law, a valid hunting license, or an invitation to participate in a trade show or sport-shooting event being conducted in Washington or in close proximity.
-------------------
From 2011:
Rules Eased on Gun Sales to Noncitizens
WASHINGTON — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is relaxing restrictions on the sale of guns to noncitizens because Justice Department lawyers have concluded that the rules had no legal basis, officials said on Thursday.
In a letter to firearms dealers on Thursday, the bureau said it would soon drop a regulation that bars the sale of guns to noncitizens until they can document that they have lived in a state for at least 90 days, such as by producing three months of utility bills in their name at a local address.
While citizens, too, must generally be residents of a state in order to buy weapons there, the 90-day rule does not apply to them. The letter said the Justice Department had concluded that the Gun Control Act does not empower the A.T.F. to impose a stricter requirement on noncitizen gun buyers.
“Once the regulations have been revised, both U.S. citizens and aliens legally present in the U.S. will be subject to the same requirements for state residency and proof of residency,” the A.T.F. said in the letter.
The announcement drew criticism from some advocates of gun control measures, including Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, who said that it “defies common sense and puts Americans at risk” because it could make it easier for foreign terrorists to obtain weapons inside the United States.
The Justice Department, however, said that A.T.F. regulations had to be compatible with the plain text of the Gun Control Act. The agency is in the process of replacing a longstanding “interim” regulation for gun sales to noncitizens with a final rule, which led to a fresh review by the department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
This month, the department published an October memorandum by the Office of Legal Counsel that said another aspect of the A.T.F.’s regulations went too far. It was a rule carrying out a section of the Gun Control Act that generally bars “aliens” who have “been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa” from buying or possessing weapons.
Congress had added that restriction in 1998, a year after a Palestinian visitor shot several people on the observation deck of the Empire State Building. But the A.T.F. rule went further than the statute by applying the ban to all nonimmigrant visitors — including those from several dozen Western countries whose citizens do not need a visa to visit the United States, like Canada and Britain.
In the memorandum — disclosed to the public on Dec. 8 — Virginia Seitz, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, said the A.T.F. regulation could not go further than the statute specified. For that reason, she said, the bureau must cancel any pending investigations premised “on the view that the statute applies to all nonimmigrant aliens, regardless of visa status.”
Nonimmigrant visitors to the United States who entered without a visa would still have to meet other requirements to buy a weapon — including establishing that they are residents, such as by obtaining a driver’s license with a local address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was curious about this subject with the recent concern with terrorists sneaking into countries amongst refugees. Should non-citizens be allowed to purchase firearms? I can see an exception made for Canadians like there is now so they can do hunting.
I don't think banning refugees is the way to go and neither is internment camps like the government did to the Japanese during WWII.
Last edited by a moderator:
The language is not safe for work or home, but this is a good article: Talking Productively About Guns.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Interesting exchange here between Pres. Obama and Tara Kyle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8mgAgf3UOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8mgAgf3UOc
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Ratbert
Footballguy
Jobber
Footballguy
This is now a gun buying discussion.I'm thinking about picking up a revolver next. Got any suggestions?
Ratbert
Footballguy
The ruger SP 101 is very nice indeed. http://www.ruger.com/products/sp101/
For women with small hands/frames, the 327 is very manageable. 357 magnum FTW.
Last edited by a moderator:
ATC1
Footballguy
The man also has a DUI and was drunk at the theater. Clearly not carrying legally and will never carry legally again.
Chaka
Footballguy
[icon]
Insoxicated
"Why are you afraid of a registration", they said.
"You're just paranoid.. nobody would use it to take away your guns", they said.
NY using registration to demand residents turn in rifles (October 13, 2016).
That should do away with any questioning opposition of any form of registry.
"You're just paranoid.. nobody would use it to take away your guns", they said.
NY using registration to demand residents turn in rifles (October 13, 2016).
That should do away with any questioning opposition of any form of registry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
I understand your point, but let's be fair here.
1. What do you do when a gun is, indeed, illegally owned (forget whether or not it should be and all, let's just assume it's the law and you are breaking it by owning an illegal firearm
2. Why must we always throw out the baby with the bathwater... if the problem here is not the registration, but rather how that information is being used, let's solve that problem not just give up and say, oh, well, can't have any records or registrations of this stuff! We can, if we have the right system or work towards that goal.
Because for someone like myself with the underlying premise of you should be free to do whatever you want (including own guns) so long as it does not infringe upon my freedoms, as things stand now, I face far more risk from not having enough checks and balances to ensure responsible gun ownership than even an overreaching anti-gun policy.
As I don't want the latter to become worse, I'd suggest we find a way to address the former... all the guns that we can ensure are not a threat to others. And registration seems a pretty easy start for anyone with reason. We can then discuss how such a strategy should be tactically applied. Including what happens when "society" agrees, through law, that certain guns may indeed curtail more rights for the non gun owner than they provide to that gun owner.
[icon]
Insoxicated
I'm all for sensible gun laws...
The point here was simply to once and for all kill the argument that gun owners needn't fear the use of a registration to confiscate firearms.
That discussion is over. It happens. This will significantly bolster the anti-registration resolve of law-abiding gun owners, including myself. I will never register a firearm. I can already see buzz flying around on social media right now.
The point here was simply to once and for all kill the argument that gun owners needn't fear the use of a registration to confiscate firearms.
That discussion is over. It happens. This will significantly bolster the anti-registration resolve of law-abiding gun owners, including myself. I will never register a firearm. I can already see buzz flying around on social media right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
This isn't really a baby/bathwater debate. The actual argument is that government cannot be trusted to HAVE this information in the first place. It's kind of like the argument re: the NSA collecting metadata. I'm not interested in defining a system that disallows the NSA from using the information improperly, as I believe that government shouldn't have the information at all.
Koya
Footballguy
Ok, so let's assume for the moment you are correct...
what is your suggestion? Because having guns that (again lets assume for discussion sake) we all agree are not responsible for personal ownership - whether its magazines, a bazooka, a ####### tank, the line gets drawn somewhere - is not in the public interest (infringes on more rights than it protects, in my parlance). So, what is the mechanism by which to address that?
Second, it's ok for the gov't to have access to and control god knows what other data about us, yet this is off limits?
To me, it's all about finding that balance. Understanding in a perfect world we could all do whatever we wanted and it would not affect others, but it is not - and my exercise of rights has an effect on you and others. To me, the right to safety and life by having some level of registration, even understandign the inherent risks therein, far outweighs the right to unfettered access to any gun whatsoever. Constituionally you can discuss this through what is a militia and how strict/loose a construction of the document do you wish to read... but for me and my base politics its all about personal freedom.
And when lunatics (legit ones, not just "crazy rednecks" in the common parlance) can go, unchecked, get high caliber, huge magazine killing machines without any balance to protect the public from improper use of that weapon, well, my libertrian meter starts to buzz that their right to gun ownership is outweighed by the public's right not to be exposed to chance of well, death.
FWIW as backdrop, I had been strongly anti-gun most of my youth and into college. I still believed fully in these ideals of freedom (although they were forming in terms of policy and how to get there), but it was not until I lived in Israel for a year when I realized you CAN have large scale, RESPONSIBLE gun ownership... but with that comes a lot of regulation as well, it's the nature of that beast.
Sadly, we as a nation have not shown our gun owners, collectively, to be nearly responsible enough. Hence the rights of toddlers getting killed, theater goers getting killed, elementary children getting killed, are being shoved aside because there is not a dedication to actually solving the issue.
And the issue shouldn't be guns or no guns. It should be how do we have SAFE and RESPONSIBLE gun ownership that in turn protects more rights and freedoms than it takes away.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I'm not sure I have the perfect solution. I want there to be some check on the ability to get a gun, but I also don't want government (or anyone else) to know who has what guns.
Just pointing out that your baby/bathwater analogy mischaracterizes the position of people like me.
Just pointing out that your baby/bathwater analogy mischaracterizes the position of people like me.
Koya
Footballguy
Understood. To me, unless there is SOME solution provided, then it's "well, can't have the gov't have the info, so no registrations! my hands are tied"
That, imo at least, is throwing out the baby as well.
Of course, if we had more trust within our system, perhaps your concern would not be so prevalent and, perhaps even warranted.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Maybe if government hadn't betrayed our trust at every opportunity, I would trust them more. As is...
Koya
Footballguy
I hear ya. Just know what we have no doesn't work. And I'm less concerned about more data in the govt's hands as compared to the current situation which is a ####### disaster. Again, just my opinion, but more freedoms and rights are lost by not doing registration, even with the risk of gov't crap with it.Maybe if government hadn't betrayed our trust at every opportunity, I would trust them more. As is...
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I agree, what we're doing now isn't working. But, given government's track record on things like this, I'm terrified of the unintended consequences (and, in some cases, foreseeable consequences) of poorly considered legislation.I hear ya. Just know what we have no doesn't work. And I'm less concerned about more data in the govt's hands as compared to the current situation which is a ####### disaster. Again, just my opinion, but more freedoms and rights are lost by not doing registration, even with the risk of gov't crap with it.Maybe if government hadn't betrayed our trust at every opportunity, I would trust them more. As is...
While it didn't create any significantly harmful consequences, for an example of poorly considered legislation, I don't think we need to look much further than the assault weapons ban, which was essentially a ban on guns that look scary.
