1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Buying firearms — I think we should have a single national policy

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by Susan Addams, Feb 27, 2018.

  1. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Let's just get it done.

    1.) Must be 21 years old to buy ANY firearm.

    2.) No gun sales except by registered dealers, and with standard paperwork filed with law enforcement, including any waiting time imposed depending on the local policy and laws. This should apply at gun shows too, same registration, same waiting period. Those with no license should not be allowed to sell firearms.

    It won't keep people younger than 21 from obtaining firearms, but it will make it harder than just walking into a store and plopping down their drivers license.

    Also I think there should be a nation wide single policy regarding wait periods, perhaps 10 days. I just don't see this as a hardship, requiring the buyer to wait 10 days to get their gun.

    A friend recently remarked that the waiting period should be waived for those who already own guns. I disagree.

    I think we should have one national firearm purchase policy that applies to all gun sales, and that the regulations should be applied equally and identically in all jurisdictions. Let's just make it simple. One law governs all firearm sales.
     
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    In Florida if you have a CCW you do not have a waiting period even for pistols. You have already gone through a more thorough check.

    I think individuals should be allowed to sell their weapons. With one caveat, you have to have a background check. That's how I do mine. We meet at a gun store and the gun check, 5-15 minutes, comes through successfully or no sale. It adds cost but worth the peace of mind. I also do not sell to anybody under 21.

    I have no objection to nation wide standards as long as CA, NY, and IL are not the standards used. You should also have reciprocity on CCW.
     
  3. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Sorry Suzy, you're going to get seriously Fisked.

    0) We are the UNITED STATES, 50 independent and sovereign countries (that's how we were founded, anyway) that banded together and formed a federal government to provide for the common defense, regulate trade between the States and other nations. The federal government should have ZERO say about anything that takes place inside a State.

    1) Why? An 18-year old can vote, fight and die for this country, enter freely into contracts and all of the other Adulting things, except buy a handgun. I like to be consistent. So, either set ALL those (and everything else an 18 year-old can do that a 17-year-old can't) up to 21, or leave it at 18.

    2) How about "no person-to-person (private) vehicle sales except through your local DMV"? Never mind that you can purchase and operate a vehicle without a registration/license plates. How about ALL private sales, no matter what the item is being sold has to go through "The Bureau of Transfer"? If you do that with firearms, everything else is not too far behind.

    The only "national policy" I want this government to have is STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY BUSINESS UNLESS I ASK.

    2a) And why in the HELL do you want to have a law that you admit won't stop anyone? Someone on here once had a signature that went to the effect of "Laws are supposed to describe behavior that is bad for society. Laws are not supposed to declare actions bad." I know I mauled that, does anyone else remember what that was?

    2b) As far as waiting periods go, there are women every day who flee an abusive relationship with nothing but the clothes on their back. Some lived in States that had waiting periods or onerous requirements to obtain a CCW. This is when they found out that the restraining order they got against their abuser is not bulletproof because the abuser found her before she could legally obtain that defensive firearm and killed her. I remember a case like that where the victims dad gave her (illegally, I might add) a handgun that she had to use 4 hours later to successfully defend her life against her abuser. Do you seriously tell me you want to condemn women like those to death with laws like that? I don't care if it's 1,000 a year or 1 a decade, "if it saves one life."

    I know several Liberals who think a woman, raped and strangled to death is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead attempted rapist at her feet.

    Waiting periods do NOTHING. They were originally sold to us as a "cooling down" period to prevent someone from buying a gun in the heat of the moment (from a legal dealer) and immediately use it. If someone is going to do something, they will wait through any waiting period you can set up and then carry out their plans (like the Las Vegas shooter), or get it immediately through private sale/black market.

    Why, when or how any adult purchases any legal product or service (and I frequently extend that argument into "non-legal products and services") is THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS and SHOULD NOT REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF GOVERNMENT. That, at the root level is FREEDOM and supposedly the foundation of our society, culture and country.

    2c) Government doesn't do "one law" very well. Look at the original tax laws and rates in 1913, then look at the tax laws for today. Hell, look at the BATFE regulations for firearms from 1968 (which was when the FFL was born) to today. Before 1968, Sears would send you a firearm through the US mail to your house. How many mass shootings did we have when it was legal to do that, carry a weapon on a plane and all that?
     
  4. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Well Shiny I think LE should have a record of every firearm and who is the registered owner. It protects the seller too by documenting they no longer own the weapon. I'll accept any system where LE is informed of weapons transfers.

    And California? Their beautiful state has one big flaw: Sacramento. If Suzy had nukes she'd nuke Sacramento before moving out there. Get their damned pupfish too, or smelts, whatever that stupid fish is that they worship. — It reminds me of the old saying, that the ugliest part of your body is your mind. There is nothing wrong with naked people. Sacramento would be fine if they got rid of all the politicians. Is there any state that is more politically screwed up than California? If so I can't name it.

    I think the whole 18 thing was a mistake. I think voting, liquor, guns and war should all start at 21. And we are in too many wars to send children to fight. From what I've seen of 18 year olds I don't think they belong on the battlefield.

    Introducing a whole new subject, I think legal pot was another stupid mistake. Why don't we just make heroin legal too, have supervised heroin dens, as a sort of Roach Motel system to get rid of druggies early before they harm the people around them too much? I'm also in favor of assisted suicide. You wanna off yourself, give them the means to do it. IMO the world is already too crowded and if a few dopers and misfits check out on their own then all the better.

    Mark your whole post is fscked. It's not worthy of my typing a reply.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2018
  5. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I am perfectly okay with legalizing illicit drugs. I believe in the freedom of choice, even when that choice is stupid. It is not my place or the place of government to protect you from yourself. In my book, if you want to do weed, meth, crack, cocaine, heroin, krokadil, bath salts and everything else out there, go for it! Let the government tax it and tell the FDA to keep their hands off it. You hurt someone while on the stuff, however, you get dropped into a wood chipper.

    While we're at it, we could also legalize prostitution as well. That is a private transaction between two (or more) people, exchanging money for a service. Pimping, however, first offense is feet first through a wood chipper. I don't do forced sex or human trafficking.

    It would save us billions per year in Law Enforcement, the courts and prisons by not having to force people through the justice system with laws that should never have been on the books.
     
    dsl987 and Susan Addams like this.
  6. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    And when the gun confiscation begins, LE will know what and where to look for them. Watch the original Red Dawn. The General leading the attacking Cubans first move after establishing an LZ was to go to gun stores, grabbing the 4473's and raiding those addresses. I am never comfortable with government knowing what I have when it comes to things like that.
     
    Allene likes this.
  7. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Not that I needed to quote your post Mark, but that's a pretty damned good post!!! I'll sign on to everything you said!!! :)

    I agree that I don't want a nanny government. It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. I doubt very much that the Constitutional framers ever conceived that could happen, and yet here we are, the government doing stupid stuff like surcharging taxes on beverages with too much sugar (in their opinion) when all any person has to do is not open their pie hole to consume such drinks.

    As far as legalizing drugs, I could care less what people consume in private settings as long as they don't get out and drive under the influence or engage in other risky behaviors which endanger the public at large. If people want to kill themselves or ruin their health then IMO that's their decision to make. That's what we call freedom! Freedom is what America is all about. We didn't like King George III so we kicked his butt out of America so that we could have freedom... and yet I somehow wonder if in recent times we have institutionalized KG III as the government we have now.

    Prostitution is already legal. Well in some jurisdictions which AFAIK is all Nevada excepting Clark County AKA Las Vegas. LOL, you can't tell me there are no prostitutes in Vegas. I have no way of knowing (or caring) but that's human nature. Prostitution is a MORAL crime. IMO it's not the government's job to enforce moral behavior. Again, it is our freedom to be immoral if we care to as long as we do not hurt others. — As far as pimps, and I'll presume you mean abusive pimps (and not legal brothels in NV which require managers, and the distaff staff is free to leave if they wish), I disagree. A wood chipper is not painful enough nor does it last long enough to suit me. Mark, you are good at this kind of stuff. Please get your imagination going and come up with a more painful, longer lasting punishment! :) I know you are up for the job Mark, and no double entendre intended! ;)

    The reason I dislike California's legalized marijuana is because there is no test that can reliably determine when a person is under the influence, due to the nature of marijuana metabolism. I think we can agree that if people smoke pot and drive that they are endangering us all, and we can't have that. (Well we have it now anyway.) There are two factors:

    1. THC is fat soluble and when in the blood stream it infuses fatty tissues so long after the user is no longer high there is still an amount of THC present in the blood, in an equilibrium with the fatty tissues. As this residual THC is metabolized and excreted the blood level continues to drop over a period of weeks, yet the user is no longer high unless more is consumed. A blood or urine test will show positive during this period. That's why they say wait X days before you take a drug test.

    2. Individual response to X concentration of THC varies among individuals, due to genetic factors and due to experience with consuming the drug. What I'm getting at is that X level of THC in one person does not necessarily correlate to that same level in another person as far as impairment is concerned. An experienced user adjusts neurologically, sort of learns to not be stoned even at higher levels, while novices may be stoned out of their minds at the same blood concentration.

    So what I'm getting at is that there is no way a blood or urine test will tell you if a person is truly impaired unless it's a huge amount. There is a middle ground where some users may be perfectly safe for driving while other individuals may be accidents in the making, even fatal accidents. I don't mind if they kill themselves but I strongly object to their behavior endangering others. — Just to wrap it up, I doubt there will ever be an effective test to determine if a driver suspected of being impaired can be reliably detected due to the nature of THC metabolism.

    To sum it all up, I believe it's the government's job to protect people from being harmed by others, but I think it's each person's individual choice when it comes to engaging in risky behavior as long as their actions do not risk the well being of other people.

    So get to work on it Mark. Go with your imagination and come up with a more painful punishment! :D
     
  8. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    All I have to say is balls! There isn't going to be any confiscation. Not in America. You're just being paranoid. Too many of us believe in legal gun ownership. Ain't gonna happen.

    And besides, anybody with a brain has a tosser! ;)
     
  9. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Maybe you should ask Carol Bowne about it. Oh, wait, you can't. She's dead, killed by her abusive ex-boyfriend who knifed her to death in her driveway while she was waiting for NJ to give her permission to own and carry a firearm to protect herself.

    You can ask Mrs. Marshall, who shot and killed her husband. He kicked in the door of their house 11 minutes after he was released from jail. He had been served the restraining order she took out on him while in the jail.
     
  10. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Which is why the Liberals keep pushing for more gun control, asking "why does anyone need to own a gun?" They have to sell the idea to get us to give them up because they know they can't out-and-out take them.
     
  11. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    You really, really don't want to know. I would have the witnesses puking, screaming and pleading for mercy. Think Gerard Butler in Law Abiding Citizen disassembling the guy with an angle grinder. And that's me just getting warmed up. I wouldn't have even gotten down to the painful stuff yet.
     
  12. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I still believe they will never succeed. The liberals have a problem that they think some things are possible but they are not. Ex: HRC winning the Presidential race. The liberals still haven't accepted that she lost. Now they are trying to do everything possible to get Trump impeached or otherwise out of office. Liberals don't understand reality. They are living in a bubble.

    Oh, please pardon my insulting you. I guess I was having a bitchy day.
     
  13. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

    I think legal pot is a great idea, but let's put that one on a separate thread :D

    As for gun control, I can support raising the age to 21.
     
  14. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    I had my first BB gun at age 5. By age 7 I had my own .22 and .410 shotgun. By age 10, I had added a 20 gauge and 12 gauge to the mix. No, I didn't purchase them myself, but technically those purchases by my father would have been considered straw purchases under existing law, and if truthful on the forms, the sale would have been denied due to me being underaged. Raising the minimum purchase age to 21 just makes more people lie on the federal forms.

    If a person can join the military at 18, they can purchase a gun.
     
  15. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I think 21 is a better idea if only that it reduces a few fatalities or promotes them to college instead of high school.

    Just exactly how many of these mass shootings are committed by women? Maybe we need to make it 18 for women and 21 for men? :p
     
  16. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Common sense time Suzy. Hundreds of murders are committed each year by teenagers ( <18) who aren't supposed to own any firearm, especially a handgun that you need to be 21 to legally purchase. Why do you believe that another law would stop them from possessing and using weapons that they already break the law to possess in the first place?
     
  17. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    That's always my first question as well Mark. If someone is willing to break a law like murder, what makes anyone think they wouldn't also break a gun law?

    We have a cultural problem, not a gun problem. As Susan said above, we don't see girls doing this and they have the exact same access to firearms as boys.
     
  18. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    I have no expectation any law changes will prevent shootings, only that they may have a statistical effect in resulting in a minor decrease in such acts. I think the change would be worth it even if saves only a few lives.

    Maybe what we need is to incentivize girls to carry weapons at school to keep the crazy boys under control. ;) ;) ;)
     
  19. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I can tell you how to drop school shootings by 90+%. Abolish the gun-free zone bullshit.

    For everything we do, we do a "cost/benefit" analysis, usually unconsciously. Any action we do will cost us something. Energy, time, stress, money, etc. We also derive a benefit for that action. We will do the action as long as our benefits exceed the costs.

    Why don't we see mass shootings at police stations (other than Terminator movies) or gun shows? Because the potential shooter is 104% certain that there are a bunch of people at those locations who are A) armed, B) know how to use said arms and C) ready and willing to make you dead. They are likewise 104% certain that if they do it in a gun-free zone, they will have a crowd of people who cannot return fire and thus the bad person has about 4 minutes to perform maximum carnage before the police gets there.

    This is not rocket science, people (I know, I'm a rocket scientist). Just as water always seeks it's lowest level, criminals always pick victims whom they perceive cannot defend themselves.
     
  20. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Unregistered User

    Well there was that mass shooting where an officer went crazy and entered a restricted zone at a military base and shot maybe a dozen people until he himself got shot in the neck (?) and got permanently paralyzed. It was a high security area and most of the persons present were stripped of their arms. I think it's still in the courts but the perp is going nowhere. He's paralyzed from the neck down.

    But I won't argue that shootings always occur where there are soft targets: gun free zones.

    I've armed myself only in a few places where me and a friend camped in desolation, no people around, creepy if somebody came into your campsite. Nobody ever did. Good thing too, considering they may have wished to continue breathing.

    I won't argue that there are gun free zones. I think the solution is no gun free zones,

    You should see the pictures my sister sends me from South Africa, every house is hardened.
     

Share This Page