Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

page: 11
104
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Uh.. no sorry that's retarded.

You are not responsible for someone else's actions.You really think if someone sells a gun and then the other person uses it in a crime both of them should go to jail? Even if the seller is a complete stranger to the criminal?
Are you part owner of a prison somewhere? Should your parents be held responsible for the ignorance of your post?




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Reporting a gun stolen does little good if it was stolen (registered) in one state and used as in a crime in another state if there is no national registry.

A gun should be able to be tracked from manufacturing to each owner of that gun, just like cars are. That way you could see that Joe Schmo in Texas seems to be buying a lot of guns and then selling them in big cities around the nation that then always end up being reported stolen...hmmm...maybe there is something shady going on there.
edit on 16-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Uh.. no sorry that's retarded.

You are not responsible for someone else's actions.You really think if someone sells a gun and then the other person uses it in a crime both of them should go to jail? Even if the seller is a complete stranger to the criminal?
Are you part owner of a prison somewhere? Should your parents be held responsible for the ignorance of your post?


I think that if you buy a gun, then you are responsible for that gun. If you don't propergly secure it, you should be held responsible. If it is "stolen" or "lost" or you just don't have a clue where it's at and you don't report it, then you should be held accountable for any crime that is commited using that gun.

If it is sold and that sale is properly registered through the national registry, then it becomes the new owners responsibility. A national registry can help crack down on stolen guns falling into the hands of criminals.

It's not a hard concept to understand, we register lots of things for this exact same purpose.

But you can go ahead and say it is "retarded" and then go on and mis-use the word "ignorance" in an attempt to use it as an insult (hint...being "ignorant" isn't a negative thing). I'm sure you will find enough fellow low intelligence members to pat you on the back for it.
edit on 16-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I do see your point but I have to say that I'm not comfortable with someone buying a gun with no background check, it seems like a lot of shady dealings could happen that way. I'm left on the fence with it I guess because I do believe that common sense regulation is needed... figuring out what is common sense is the hard part.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


weapons used in civil war reenactment are not subject to federal gun laws as replica and antique weapons are exempt from federal gun laws (unless its a cannon that shoots explosive projectiles) but black powder weapons require no background check and can be shipped directly to your door so i don't see them being effected by any kind of laws in the near future


The reason I mention it was the original 94-95 AWB was written such that they DID fall under that legislation. A retrofit rider needed to be added to exempt these items. History being waht it is, I would not be surprised if some genius politician looking to re-instate AWB legislation makes the same error and we have to go through all that again.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


There is a big difference, and what else do we register for this purpose?
You are talking about charging a victim with the crime perpetrated by the criminal that preyed on them! That's just ignorant.
As far as individuals selling them. You are denying the right to privacy of the millions of people who buy a gun from another individual with no intention of committing a crime so you can stop a few criminals from getting guns they are just going to go out and get elsewhere. Believe it or not but the incredible majority of people that buy unregistered weapons from private sellers do so because they don't want the government to know they have them. Not for any criminal reason, not because they aren't allowed, but because of things like this. The government knowing exactly what you have and so they should decide to make that particular kind retroactively illegal they can take it from you. It violates the gun owners privacy.

Stand up for your fellow citizens rights.

LOL.. No I am afraid I am not misusing the word. Ignorant isn't a negative thing? There is a truth that you choose to avoid so you become ignorant of it. Yes it is a negative thing to most people and should be to you, and no I am not misusing it. That is hilarious, I am arguing with a guy that literally embraces ignorance down to defending it as "not a negative thing."

ig·no·rant
/ˈignərənt/
Adjective

Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".
edit on 16-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


ahh thank you for clarifying that to me as i did not know that thanks for teaching me something!

and i see where your coming from as even in the ny law they didn't exempt cops from it as they wrote it so quickly and no one read it that they didn't check to see if cops were exempted so now they have to pass more legislation until they correct their mistake,or not correct it and limit cops to the same weapons civilians can own and only 7 round mags.....might teach the police a good lesson if they just like the lawful gun owner both have to worry about criminals having more bullets then them for a while and again thank you for correcting my mistake



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



Reporting a gun stolen does little good if it was stolen (registered) in one state and used as in a crime in another state if there is no national registry.


Reporting it stolen covers the previous owner of any liability. They can’t say crap to me if I show them a bill of sale or a police report. I don’t care where it goes after it’s stolen and nobody will know where it went after stolen unless/until it turns up at a crime scene somewhere. The registry won’t prevent the crime.




A gun should be able to be tracked from manufacturing to each owner of that gun, just like cars are. That way you could see that Joe Schmo in Texas seems to be buying a lot of guns and then selling them in big cities around the nation that then always end up being reported stolen...hmmm...maybe there is something shady going on there.


Don’t you see how this power can be abused?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





I support a federal background check. THAT would do a lot to prevent gun violence. Wouldn't wipe it out, but it could really help.


Really you mean like drug regulation prescriptions etc. prevent illegal drug use? Oh wait... Please tell us how background checks prevent any gun violence and please provide evidence of course..



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


Hey no problem. One of the factors that pushed it over the top back then (if memory serves) is that in the Massachusetts statehouse, there was an original 18th century Revolutionary War musket in display. It was a very important item, and well revered. Well, that fell under the AWB ban and would be required by the law to be removed. When it was pointed out that was the case, I'll imagine there was a chorus of "DOH ! " echoing thorough the halls.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



I do see your point but I have to say that I'm not comfortable with someone buying a gun with no background check, it seems like a lot of shady dealings could happen that way. I'm left on the fence with it I guess because I do believe that common sense regulation is needed... figuring out what is common sense is the hard part.


I totally understand your point.....I do......but how do we accomplish this without violating the privacy of honest citizens?

I’m all for keeping guns out of the hands of Looney’s but I’m not giving up a pound of freedom for an ounce of security.


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Ben Franklin had it right



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




but how do we accomplish this without violating the privacy of honest citizens?


I don't have an answer for that and I agree 100% with the freedom for security quote... I just don't know that it has to be one or the other on everything. Sometimes it's okay and even best to find common ground on.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
They are mandating a required waiting period in many of these laws, as a cooling off period for buying gun. I recommend if they think that is such a good idea, we institute a mandatory waiting period for drafting and passing legislation after an incident such as the Sandy Hook Tragedy. If we have to wait to "cool off to prevent doing something disastrous in the heat of the moment", they why not hold our legislature to that same standard to prevent passing a law that could be disastrous.

Hmm.....
edit on 16-1-2013 by Krakatoa because: Changed to wording slightly to better clarify my message



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by seabag
 




but how do we accomplish this without violating the privacy of honest citizens?


I don't have an answer for that and I agree 100% with the freedom for security quote... I just don't know that it has to be one or the other on everything. Something it's okay and even best to find common ground on.


If you and I can't figure out what that common ground is then what makes you think the knuckle heads in DC will?

Somebody will get it 'their way' and someone else will get bent over.....and it seems the America people are always the ones playing catcher.


I hope they find a reasonable solution but to think the repubs are going to counter this call for registration with something that satisfies me is far fetched IMO.

Both parties have a long history of disappointing me!
edit on 16-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
How about new legislation to regulate the gun manufacturing industry to make a next generation of "smart gun" where the safety cannot be turned off without being held by the hand of the owner or without a combination entry by the gun's owner.. wouldn't that be a good idea?

edit on 16-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: typo, misspelled gun as "fun" duh.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
How about new legislation to regulate the fun manufacturing industry to make a next generation of "smart gun" where the safety cannot be turned off without being held by the hand of the owner or without a combination entry by the gun's owner.. wouldn't that be a good idea?


They already produce such a device. My guess is its too expensive to become mainstream.

Just think...you could have made millions!!


I also must agree with this point from the link:


"No defensive firearm should ever rely upon any technology more advanced than Newtonian physics. That includes batteries, radio links, encryption, scanning devices and microcomputers. Even if a particular system could be 99.9% reliable, that means it is expected to fail once every 1000 operations. That is not reliable enough. My life deserves more certainty."
edit on 16-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


That's why it has to OUR conversation and not theirs.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
How about new legislation to regulate the gun manufacturing industry to make a next generation of "smart gun" where the safety cannot be turned off without being held by the hand of the owner or without a combination entry by the gun's owner.. wouldn't that be a good idea?

edit on 16-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: typo, misspelled gun as "fun" duh.


I started a thread on this exact topic a while ago here:

Can we force an evolution in gun manufacturing to enable a more safe weapon...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I really love that idea but what about all the guns in existence already? It would be a start anyway. Get some of that new business grants money and do it up.





new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join