The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 14, 2012, 04:35 PM   #1
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,656
Restrictions Gun Owners Want?

Daniel W. Webster a professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins has written an article for CNN detailing what he believes are the new restrictions that firearms enthusiast support. He makes the case for closing various “loopholes” and requiring background checks for all gun purchases. He also recommends expanding restrictions on gun sales to include more misdemeanor convictions.

Also, an interesting thing to consider is that most of us on this forum represent only a certain portion of gun owners. We are most likely more engaged and involved than the average gun owner might be. So, it is possible we could have a situation where a large number of gun owners may support restrictions that might ultimately be bad for all.

I suppose the article does have some good points for debate, so what do you think?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c3
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 04:48 PM   #2
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,522
The frog in the pot is boiled one degree at a time.I read the same Constitution you do.

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arm Shall Not Be Infringed"

We are Not a Democracy!!We are a Constitutional Republic.Our individual liberties are ,in part,defined by our Constitution.It is not up to any coalition of gun owners to give up that right.They do not own it.
A lynch mob is Democracy.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 04:50 PM   #3
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,961
What do I think? I note that he cites MAIG as one of his sources. I note that he refers to the imaginary "gun show loophole" as an "absurd loophole." I think he likes the idea of gun control, and he's gone on the hunt for statistics to make it look reasonable. That's what I think.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 04:56 PM   #4
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
It is not up to any coalition of gun owners to give up that right.They do not own it.
Excellent point that I think many tend to overlook.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 04:57 PM   #5
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,522
I went to a gunshow last weekend.I have been to a lot of them.The gun show loophole is a lie,in my experience.Signs going into the show clearly state all firearms transactions require background check and legal transfer,just like in a gun shop.
Folks who refer to the "gunshow loophole" as fact are either ignorant,liars,or both.We need to confront it every time it is repeated.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 05:07 PM   #6
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
Keeping guns from criminals and alcoholics isn't anti-gun -- it's pro-safety.
I was wondering when they'd get around to that...
That's a first as far as I know.
Hal is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 05:14 PM   #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryLee
...so what do you think?
I think that the level to which most people on this site are informed is the vast exception, not the rule.

No matter the issue, from taxes to abortion to gun rights to immigration, by far most people I talk to in the real world can do little more than parrot talking points they get from (if you're lucky) TV news and (more likely) their acquaintances filtered opinions of what THEY got from TV news.

Many people spout talking points that are diametrically opposed to the opinions they expose if you ask them direct questions on the issues to uncover their true beliefs.

In other words, they have no idea what they're saying or how it is in opposition to their stated beliefs and, therefore, their stated opinions on such matters is not terribly relevent.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 05:15 PM   #8
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Folks who refer to the "gunshow loophole" as fact are either ignorant,liars,or both.
The "loophole" has more to do with private party sales... those occasions where someone takes a gun to a show to sell to another attendee than buying from a FFL with a table. But you can bet the regulation has to do with all private sales, not just those at a show.

The people pushing such things either have no idea how gun shows actually work (ignorant) or know full well what they are asking for (liars).
Technosavant is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 05:18 PM   #9
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,545
Some states, I think, demand background checks at shows for private sales. Correct me if I'm wrong. Most don't. Sales from FFLs are controlled

If things were to be passed (which I doubt), the ones that probably have traction are:

1. Requiring NICS at shows for private sales.

2. Some limit on larger capacity mags. That's stupid as the available supply of such makes stopping new ones meaningless. That was found out in the first AWB. Proposing confiscation is going to be a horror for those who propose such.

Those who propose new restrictions have little idea about actual efficacy or implementation. I suppose they could pull off the NICS for private sales at shows but that's about it.

I don't fault those who lost a loved one or had a tragedy like Giffords. However, they really don't think through how what they want would be done.

It's similar to demanding a return to prohibition if your loved one was killed by a DUI.

The suggested measures wouldn't impact crime in the slightest. We know that from the AWB period.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 05:21 PM   #10
1-DAB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2010
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 121
in a parallel argument, we could advocate that news people should lose their rights if they misspell words, get facts wrong, don't quote people accurately....

or...if he jaywalks, gets a ticket, he can't have any paper or ink or a computer for 6 months....

we have plenty of laws, lets enforce what we have.
1-DAB is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 07:13 PM   #11
Glockstar .40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2012
Location: West of the Rockies
Posts: 294
i have no problem with backround checks to keep firearms away from violent felons...but then again eventually they will probably make a fender bender an act of violence
Glockstar .40 is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 07:18 PM   #12
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
but then again eventually they will probably make a fender bender an act of violence
Yes, don't forget the classically ambiguous "Hate Speech".
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 07:32 PM   #13
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
I know a guy who was charged with DV because he raised his voice to his girlfriend. A loud argument, nobody was swinging or throwing anything, just yelling.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 07:51 PM   #14
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,217
Harsh words are the new "abuse." Seriously. At least 20 years ago I dated a woman who steadfastly maintained that she had been abused by her father when she was a child.

The "abuse" turned out to be two incidents:

(1) He once yelled at her for doing something dumb

(2) He once left his bedroom door ajar and she peeked in and saw him getting dressed.

Yes, this was "abuse" -- and she had shrinks who validated that for her.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 08:21 PM   #15
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,195
We need to wake up and smell the roses for the roses they are.
Gun control is not about crime or criminals, its all about disarming the American people so they can lead us around like a bunch of lambs.
Look how many times congress has gone against the constitution like passing Obamacare for all citizens but not for themselves, look at how they voted that congressmen cannot be charged with sexual harassment. The constitution says congress shall pass no law that applies to the people that does not apply to themselves as well.
Gun control is not about crime or criminals, its all about disarming the American citizen because they have gone so far and go farther everyday that they are afraid the American people will say enough is enough
rebs is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 08:27 PM   #16
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Give an inch they will take a mile; before you know it in States like California an unpaid ticket will preclude you from gun ownership. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


In my state of Illinois a background check is not required for private sales but a FOID card is(the process of getting one involves a background check). Chicago has one of the highest crime rates in the country yet no ammount of new gun laws have blunted the plague of "gun crime". Given that what would any additional laws accomplish besides making a few anti gun types momentairly content?
Patriot86 is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 08:38 PM   #17
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebs
The constitution says congress shall pass no law that applies to the people that does not apply to themselves as well.
Where does it say that?
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 09:40 PM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,067
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research is little more than a front for the Joyce Foundation, and Webster is often their mouthpiece.

These are the people who vowed to crush the 2nd Amendment and alienate all of us from any part of the conversation 20 years ago. Now, they want to open a dialogue. Why? Because they're losing so badly I almost pity them.

Almost. We don't owe Webster, Helmke, Brady, or any of the others anything. We certainly lose nothing by ignoring their manipulative requests for debates over things we don't need to compromise any more.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 09:49 PM   #19
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,297
NONE!...

NONE!......... (The only gun restrictions I want to see is on politicians shooting their mouths off with lies. If its a misdemeanor to lie to the police, and a felony to lie to congress, shouldn't it be a Capitol crime to lie to the public?)
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 10:03 PM   #20
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,905
Can't remember where I first came across this illustration. I know it was someone's blog, but can't seem to find the link anywhere. But it was brilliant, and it's stuck with me.

The story goes like this ...

I am sitting at a table in the park, smiling because I have a wonderful, delicious chocolate cake in front of me. I love cake!

A big, ugly-looking dude comes up and says, "Give me your cake. Now."

I say, "No! It's MY cake..."

He says, "Aww, you're right. Let's just ... compromise. I'll take half the cake, but you can keep the other half."

I say, "It's my cake..."

He says, "Don't be unreasonable. I have agreed to compromise with you even though I don't have to. I want the whole cake, but I'm only taking half."

He's bigger than I am, and looks like he could beat me up, so I give him half my cake. Call it a necessary compromise.

Five minutes later, dude comes back. There's chocolate icing on his lip. "Give me your cake," he says.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

pax
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 10:06 PM   #21
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,656
Quote:
These are the people who vowed to crush the 2nd Amendment and alienate all of us from any part of the conversation 20 years ago.
Yes, as I’ve said before I do not believe we will see a full frontal attack, but various forms of stealth gun control. One of the strategies is what they term “reasonable restrictions”. They hope to use folks like this to deceive gun owners into accepting what they tell us is reasonable, but what are just more incremental steps to their ultimate goal. This article appeared on CNN’s WEB Site with absolutely no rebuttal or even a hint that everything said was not 100% true.

We must be rational and seek ways to educate ourselves and other gun owners. Also, even non-gun owners tend to support the 2A, so let’s take time to discuss the actual facts.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 14, 2012, 10:32 PM   #22
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by pax
Can't remember where I first came across this illustration. I know it was someone's blog, but can't seem to find the link anywhere. But it was brilliant, and it's stuck with me.

The story goes like this ...

I am sitting at a table in the park, smiling because I have a wonderful, delicious chocolate cake in front of me. I love cake! . . .
That's one of my favorites. It's entitled "Ok. I'll play," and it's from the LawDog Files.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 12:13 AM   #23
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 470
I watched the video link and read the text, even though about half-way through I had to take an anti nausea medication to keep down dinner. The really disturbing part of the nonsense both of these men are spewing is that there are gun owners who will agree that these are common sense solutions that will have no impact on them. I am afraid Brian Pfleuger is right. Being able to give a thoughtful and compelling argument to those who would chip away at our freedoms, and being engaged enough to actually do so is far too rare.

The idea of broadening the definition of crimes and misdemeanors that would disqualify one from owning a gun scares the hell out me. Using demographics to predict potential criminal use of firearms is another frightening notion: Poor folk are far more likely to be involved in a violent situation, so having firearms is then more dangerous to them and the rest of us; minorities, way too dangerous; uneducated folk, risky at best; pickup driving, Walmart shopping, country folk, or any other group who are not enlightened enough to know that gun ownership should only be allowed by those who are approved by governmental agencies for our own good need not apply. If it weren't for that pesky Constitution, we could be as free, safe, and prosperous as the UK and the rest of Europe! If only we had more wise and learned Brits like Piers Morgan and elitist professors to point us in the proper direction...
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

"If you let "need" be a requirement and Government be the arbiter of that "need", then Liberty is as dead as King Tut." Jimbob86
K_Mac is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 01:43 AM   #24
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
I was an adult firearms owner before the GCA68 ever happened...there were no "prohibited persons" back then...and there were less problems..

You want crime to do down, repeal the controlled substances act...just like Alcohol Prohibition...it has made many two bit punks very wealthy, caused a lot of crime and wasted a lot of public funds, for what?

Just like the criminals will obtain their firearms illegally if they cannot legally, the people the misuse controlled substances will get their illegally if they cannot legally.

The difference? Does the state get tax revenue on a legitimate sale, or are criminal gangs going to get rich and the state expend serious fund trying to suppress a market that is not going to go away? You better believe the controlled substances peddlers voted against legalizing MJ on CO, OR and WA, and CA last election. If it was legal there would be no money in their activity....the gangs have no funds, they have no lure to help them recruit new members.
hermannr is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 02:46 AM   #25
ronl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2007
Posts: 759
I believe our country already has more than enough gun laws , many of which are blatantly unconstitutional. The anti-gun crowd is well known to create facts and figures that are absolute lies. For example, they have always tried to link crime with gun ownership. There are vast amounts of data that prove the reverse to be true. Look at the UK. Crime has risen so much since their draconian laws have gone into effect that their law enforcement has attempted to reclassify violent crimes in order to hide the true scope of the problem. If you truly want to eliminate crime, give everyone a weapon, train them properly, and allow them to carry it wherever they want. I will take a bold stance and say that you would see much violent crime nearly disappear. The real question here is why they feel it necessary to limit our right at all. It begs to ask what is the the true, ulterior motive behind the attempt to take away our right to keep and bear arms.
ronl is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14354 seconds with 9 queries