Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/17/09 10:49 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I'd like to add that voting is a right, but we still keep tags on who can and who can't.

I seem to remember GA wanting to impose a requirement to have ID that was shot down as unreasonable. Even when the govt proposed DELIVERING ID to folks who didn't have any, it was shot down.

So the only thing this does is make the process of buying a gun faster.

That doesn't strike you in the least bit odd, or dangerous?

Not if you acquire the card legally, because then you'd have to take a test. Apart from that, it wouldn't do much, but it would help.

I don't see the difference between a government capable of spying on me and a government who wants to know what guns I have, regardless of who's in office. Just because Obama is the new guy in office doesn't make him any better than Bush, in the end they're both just politicians who are out to make themselves look good for the media spotlight.

I see the difference. Besides, it might help in criminal investigation.

"A man named Josh Goldman, am member of a gang, shot up a bank, Commissioner. Where did he get those guns?"

"Well, Cheif, it says right here that he bought them from Bob's Guns 3 years ago."

"Oh. Let's see who else guns were sold to on that same day, maybe we can track down the whole gang!"

Idealistic, but whatever.

No, because as you have previously pointed out, these items have purposes besides hurting and injuring people, of which guns are designed to do. The government already is ready, capable, and willing to infringe on our personal rights through roving wiretaps, GITMO, and secret prisons in Europe, and you want to give that same government another reason to be suspicious of the general populace.

It seems to me that we're a lot more paranoid of the government than it is of us. I don't want the gun list up so the Government knows who has guns, I want the gun list so that when a police officer is about to break into a building, he knows ahead of time that the man inside has a shotgun.

Furthermore, the point is not to monitor who has guns

Then why is it necessary for the government to know who has them?

I've given a few ideas above, but the card system can only work if there is a list.

Then why are you still arguing the point of a card if the status quo is good enough as it is?

Because it's not the status quo everywhere, only in one state.

I'm okay with the status quo, you're okay with the status quo, but you're advocating we trash the status quo despite agreeing with it and replacing it with your idea, which is nothing more than MORE government control over the population at large.

That's funny, from what I could see my idea was almost identical to the Tennessee law's, all I want is for it to be where I live. And where you live. And everywhere else.

We all scream government interference like it's a curse, but it's all a matter of scale. Nobody complains about the road system, and sure, maybe the government put bombs in the roads so they can blow up protesters, but I'm not betting on it. On the same token, I don't think that this gun list will be abused, and if it is, we have much bigger problems to worry about.

You lose.

Are you kidding? You're scared of change and paranoid of the system and you say I lose because I'm unable to disprove your EMOTIONS?

At 3/17/09 10:48 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Wiretapping doesn't target anybody,

Where registration does. How convenient.

Wiretapping taps everybody because everybody can commit a crime. Registration targets gun owners because it's a GUN REGISTRATION PROGRAM and only gun owners can commit gun crimes. Should we put everybody who is old enough to hold a gun on our list?

Sad to say, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

Sad to say, I don't agree with the Supreme Court. Governments all bad up until it agrees with you, huh?

At 3/17/09 10:49 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I'd like to add that voting is a right, but we still keep tags on who can and who can't.

When was the last time voting killed someone?

You don't want the government knowing who has guns because, if they ever try to kill all dissenters, they'll go for gun owners first. SUPPOSEDLY. So they care about who has guns.

Do you think the government doesn't care who can vote? We KNOW governments abuse voting rights, what with the bloody recounts in Florida in 2000. So far, the government has been pretty cool when it comes to guns.

If you're scared of the government, be scared of ALL of it.

If the government ever went bad, really really bad, it wouldn't go out and kill gun owners, it would just grow more and more corrupt. What, do you really think the government thinks that gun owners pose any threat to the army? And if they don't use the army, then we wouldn't need guns to win anyway.

At 3/17/09 07:53 PM, LiquidSperber wrote:
Laws still apply, whether you are allowed to carry a gun or not. If you aren't in mortal danger, you can't respond with lethal force. Your response, just like in the country you are living in (what country is that, BTW?) must be proportional to the threat.

This maybe true, but the definition of mortal danger is up to interpretation. You should be having a quickdraw if you can only correspond when the other person has their gun pulled. For example, I remember this case where some robbers robbed a store, while the owner was asleep. Then the owner woke up and the robbers fled, to which the owner pulled his gun and killed one of them. Was it okay to pull the gun? The robbers were robbing his stuff and he tried to stop them, so maybe it's the fault of the robbers entirely. Was he in mortal danger? Far from that. The robbers were running away and never actually made contact with him.
I live in Europe by the way, and here guns are not so much allowed.

Also, I wonder, what does the permit of holding a gun imply exactly? In America, do people walk around on the street carrying their gun? If I go to a bar in NY, can I be sure that the man sitting next to me is having a gun in reach, for as someone might take him by surprise?

At 3/17/09 09:52 PM, Proteas wrote: Background check =/= government based monitoring by registration through a database.

license =/= gun registration. I have a drivers license but my driving record has nothing to do with the car I own, its no where on my drivers record. Swipe the card, checks to see if you can legal purchase a gun, if you can then the dealer sells you the gun. Not a registration program. All it does is prove on the spot you can legally purchase that class of firearm.

Your plan has that one fatal flaw in it that I sited with g.n.e.; you'd be greenlighting sociopaths to get a gun the same day just as a law abiding citizen would.

If a doctor feels a patient is not mentally fit to have firearms he or she must report it, juts like if your doctor feels you cannot drive due to medical conditions or vision changes. That information gets sent on to the licensing office who then revokes your license, so when a gun dealer checks the validity it comes back as being revoked. This is why I said its like swiping a credit card, instant authorization. Just having the card does not mean you can buy, you have to check it, just like a credit card.

How does a smaller, less powerful round cause more damage than the bigger round?

9mm and 7.97 rounds impact differently. The 7.97 from what I understand (could be wrong) has a tendency to pitch once it hits the target causing more internal damage. The 9mm has a tendency to over-penetrate, causing less internal damage.

Are you starting to see how grossly ineffective the Assault Weapons Ban was?

I know the Ban was ineffective and ridiculous on some points, but do you think that most epoepl should be allowed to own automatic weapons? Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, but I think the general public for the most part has no need.

Another note: what does it mean to not be mentally fit?

Is there an extensive psychological test or does this apply only for people with a diagnosed psychological illness?

At 3/18/09 12:46 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Another note: what does it mean to not be mentally fit?

Is there an extensive psychological test or does this apply only for people with a diagnosed psychological illness?

Well, I don´t know of any tests that will guarantee a 100% thorough and complete analysis of a persons psychological state, but I do know what a psychologist generally classifies as an impaired mental state:

- Overly destructive behaviour
- Manodepression
- Multipersonality
- Other characteristics of a Psychotic state of mind

Those are the manifestations of mental illnesses that are considered the most severe and are perceived as threats to those surrounding the ill persons security. Minor illnesses are things like phobias and obsessive compulsory disorders, these are considered minor because the person exhibiting them is generally aware of his behaviour and wishes to change it. As far as my limited knowledge of psychology goes, I think that about covers it.

Just wanted to sort that out real quick. I don´t have anything to say about the threads original topic, so do carry on with your discussion.

At 3/18/09 06:57 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

This maybe true, but the definition of mortal danger is up to interpretation. You should be having a quickdraw if you can only correspond when the other person has their gun pulled. For example, I remember this case where some robbers robbed a store, while the owner was asleep. Then the owner woke up and the robbers fled, to which the owner pulled his gun and killed one of them. Was it okay to pull the gun? The robbers were robbing his stuff and he tried to stop them, so maybe it's the fault of the robbers entirely. Was he in mortal danger? Far from that. The robbers were running away and never actually made contact with him.
I live in Europe by the way, and here guns are not so much allowed.

I'm not a legal expert, but I'm reasonably sure the store owner would be charged in the case you mentioned. You normally cannot shoot a fleeing person because they obviously aren't intending to harm you at that point.

Also, I wonder, what does the permit of holding a gun imply exactly? In America, do people walk around on the street carrying their gun? If I go to a bar in NY, can I be sure that the man sitting next to me is having a gun in reach, for as someone might take him by surprise?

48 of our 50 states have a concealed carry law. That means you are allowed - if licensed - to carry a concealed weapon. NY, BTW, has pretty strict laws. You pretty much have to bribe someone to get a license there. Statistics - taken over the past 20 years - have shown concealed carry licensees to be in the top percentile or two in terms of being law abiding. More so than even the police. So, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

At 3/18/09 10:04 AM, JoS wrote:

If a doctor feels a patient is not mentally fit to have firearms he or she must report it, juts like if your doctor feels you cannot drive due to medical conditions or vision changes.

Where exactly does this doctor reporting people who no longer should drive occur? I've NEVER heard of that.

9mm and 7.97 rounds impact differently. The 7.97 from what I understand (could be wrong) has a tendency to pitch once it hits the target causing more internal damage. The 9mm has a tendency to over-penetrate, causing less internal damage.

9mm's shoot at around 1200 fps. 7.62 (the AK47 round) shoots at about double that velocity. Both bullets are similar in weight. 9mm is usually 115 or 125 gr and 7.62 is 120 gr. Typically, a 9mm would be hollow point whereas a 7.62 would be full metal jacket. So... the 7.62 would tend to pass thru the target "wasting" energy in whatever is behind the target (normally you want to transfer ALL the energy into the target for max effect). A 9mm hollowpoint on the other hand would have a better chance of expanding and not passing thru the target. So, the 7.62 gives a wider hydroshock wound (tissue affected around the wound channel from the shock wave). The 9mm on the other hand creates a bigger torn tissue wound due to the bullet expansion. These are typical loads, but there would be nothing stopping you from firing full metal jacketed 9mms or a hollow point 7.62. I'm just saying the most abundant rounds are those I mentioned.

I know the Ban was ineffective and ridiculous on some points, but do you think that most epoepl should be allowed to own automatic weapons? Obviously there are some exceptions to the rule, but I think the general public for the most part has no need.

The "assault weapon ban" bans NO automatic weapons. Only semi-auto version that LOOK like the military weapons. In terms of NEED that's irrelevant. Legally owned machine guns have accounted for TWO deaths since 1934 - doesn't sound like they are much of a problem to me.

At 3/17/09 11:20 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Apart from that, it wouldn't do much, but it would help.

In order to convince people that yours is the correct viewpoint, you actually have to be able to show why you think this way. Just saying that "this is the way I think, screw you all I'm right" doesn't work. The only thing this card system does is allow for people to get guns faster at the cost of having the government monitor them closer, which I'm not in favor of.

The only thing I see happening is more Massacres like Virginia Tech, because hey... now you don't have to wait three days to shoot somebody. Somebody can piss you off on your lunch break, you can go out, get the gun, and that guy will be dead before he can finish his sandwhich.

So I ask you; If it doesn't do much, how does help?

I want the gun list so that when a police officer is about to break into a building, he knows ahead of time that the man inside has a shotgun.

... why would a police officer need to break into a building with the foreknowledge that the man inside has a gun?

You want to sit here and argue that the government wouldn't abuse such a list and then present this point? What are you on?

That's funny, from what I could see my idea was almost identical to the Tennessee law's, all I want is for it to be where I live. And where you live. And everywhere else.

You didn't even know what the gun laws actually looked like until I provided a link describing the process, so I'm going to make a small leap of faith here and say you probably don't know what the gun laws are where you live or anywhere else for that matter.

Otherwise, you could have easily cited how they differ from those in Tennessee, and made suggestions on how to improve them.

Are you kidding?

No.

You're scared of change and paranoid of the system and you say I lose because I'm unable to disprove your EMOTIONS?

You lose because of simple logic. You want to argue that a government capable of the Patriot Act, GITMO, Roving Wiretaps and European prisons wouldn't take advantage of data acquired from a Gun Owner Database, which is naive to the point of being child-like and stupid.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Wiretapping taps everybody because everybody can commit a crime.

And now you want to argue the wiretaps were a good thing? Shooting yourself in the foot, here.

Sad to say, I don't agree with the Supreme Court. Governments all bad up until it agrees with you, huh?

I'm a right-leaning Authoritarian who is Lawful Neutral; I believe that Government should keep the best interests of the general population at heart, but that we should NEVER give the government the ability to pry into the personal lives of the individual. Government should fear the individual, the individual should not fear the government. And our government has not been acting in the best interests or in fear of the general population in a looooooong time, and I am not about to be in favor of any law that gives the government another chance to mess with people.

And I live by the Hugo Black quote that says "The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional." You may say that what I'm doing here qualifies me as the "layman" in that quote, but what I'm doing is acting in the best interest of the public at large at a time when our government has been anything but trustworthy, you on the other hand are acting in favor of a government that hasn't been trustworthy.

We KNOW governments abuse voting rights, what with the bloody recounts in Florida in 2000. S

Al Gore was the one who called for those recounts, 8 times if I remember correctly, none of which he completed. That's not government abuse, that's abuse from an individual with an overinflated ego.

If you're scared of the government, be scared of ALL of it.

You're assuming I'm not already.

At 3/18/09 10:04 AM, JoS wrote: Not a registration program. All it does is prove on the spot you can legally purchase that class of firearm.

I'm going to ask you the same thing I just asked GNE, and I pray to GOD I get an honest answer out of one of you when I check this tomorrow; how is this system a significant improvement over what we have now?

After Virgina Tech, a law was passed connecting the court's decision on a person's well being the background database, we plugged that hole. It's fixed. Thanks to the Brady Bill, we have criminal background checks in place for people who want to buy a gun, that information is tied to criminal records which are updated CONSTANTLY.

And yet, you and GNE keep arguing like the U.S.A. is the fucking Wild West and we don't have such laws, when I've already shown we have over 20,000 some odd laws on the books and a good bit of them make sense. Why is that?

but do you think that most epoepl should be allowed to own automatic weapons?

"Most people" don't own automatic weapon; people with Class 3 weapons licenses DO, and they are so heavily regulated at the federal level that only 2 murders have been committed since 1934 with fully automatic weapons. Arguing that people should or should not have automatic weapons is a non-issue, arguing that people should not have "assault rifles" is a bullshit issue because the Assault Weapons Ban mainly focused on how the gun looked over how it actually functioned and it didn't prevent people from dying at Columbine with ban-era legal weapons, and arguing that our gun laws are crap and they need to be "improved" when you can't even cite what's wrong with them to begin with is simply stupid.

In order to convince people that yours is the correct viewpoint, you actually have to be able to show why you think this way. Just saying that "this is the way I think, screw you all I'm right" doesn't work. The only thing this card system does is allow for people to get guns faster at the cost of having the government monitor them closer, which I'm not in favor of.

Wrong. It also means that the only legal way for a person to obtain a gun is after passing a rudimentary safety test, to which I will add the requirement of learning how to properly store a gun in light of JoS's post.

The only thing I see happening is more Massacres like Virginia Tech, because hey... now you don't have to wait three days to shoot somebody. Somebody can piss you off on your lunch break, you can go out, get the gun, and that guy will be dead before he can finish his sandwhich.

Crimes of passion are done within the moment. They do not last with you in the time it takes to go down to the store, and if they do, you were going to end up trying to kill people anyway. Everybody in their life has a brief instant where they want to kill somebody, but it does not last any longer than that moment. Sometimes it lasts long enough for you to get a gun out. It almost NEVER lasts a trip down to the local gun store.

... why would a police officer need to break into a building with the foreknowledge that the man inside has a gun?

You want to sit here and argue that the government wouldn't abuse such a list and then present this point? What are you on?

Because I think the police officer might approach the situation differently if he knew the person inside, who is presumably angry, has a lethal weapon. What, do you think police will start storming the houses of everybody who doesn't have a gun if a list is released to the government?

You didn't even know what the gun laws actually looked like until I provided a link describing the process, so I'm going to make a small leap of faith here and say you probably don't know what the gun laws are where you live or anywhere else for that matter.

We both knew damn well that not every state's laws are like Tennessee's. And to be honest? I didn't know about Tennessee's gun laws. I've never been there and I've never thought the subject to be particularly pertinent.

My suggested improvements are to make the laws more Tennessee-like.

You lose because of simple logic. You want to argue that a government capable of the Patriot Act, GITMO, Roving Wiretaps and European prisons wouldn't take advantage of data acquired from a Gun Owner Database, which is naive to the point of being child-like and stupid.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

No, you're paranoid. The Patriot Act was spying. So were the Wiretaps. The prisons were for suspected terrorists. What you're proposing is that the government will somehow inflict punishment on EVERY GUN OWNER IN AMERICA. Which is a lot of people. There is a huge line in between spying, condemning a few political prisoners, and targeting a massive group of people in your own country, namely, the most dangerous ones. What you're proposing has about the same level of credibility as the idea that the government will suddenly wage a war against Blacks living in America.

And now you want to argue the wiretaps were a good thing? Shooting yourself in the foot, here.

No, I'm saying that wiretapping selects everybody who can commit a crime. Which is everybody. So that's at least fair. Gun registration targets people who can commit gun crimes, namely, everybody who has a gun registered. Fair. Complaining about the injustice of being biased by gun registration is like being poor and complaining that only poor people have to sign up for Welfare, not everybody.

I'm a right-leaning Authoritarian who is Lawful Neutral; I believe that Government should keep the best interests of the general population at heart, but that we should NEVER give the government the ability to pry into the personal lives of the individual. Government should fear the individual, the individual should not fear the government. And our government has not been acting in the best interests or in fear of the general population in a looooooong time, and I am not about to be in favor of any law that gives the government another chance to mess with people.

I'm a Centrist Authoritarian who is Lawfully Good, and, while I agree with you that the government is corrupt, I also believe that the government should do everything in its power to improve our lives, within reason, even if it requires some privacy invasion. To me, having your name on a list is not too much of an invasion of privacy. Look at Norway, for example. Nosey government? Yes. Less freedoms? Yes. Happy people? FUCK YES. If it helps you, imagine my proposed laws being implemented in a future with a better government.

And I live by the Hugo Black quote that says "The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional." You may say that what I'm doing here qualifies me as the "layman" in that quote, but what I'm doing is acting in the best interest of the public at large at a time when our government has been anything but trustworthy, you on the other hand are acting in favor of a government that hasn't been trustworthy.

I do know that our government hasn't been trustworthy, but there are some problems in life that can be solved only by teamwork. As in, we trust the government to do the right thing. Or at least we give it the benefit of doubt that it won't wage a war against its own taxpayers.

Al Gore was the one who called for those recounts, 8 times if I remember correctly, none of which he completed. That's not government abuse, that's abuse from an individual with an overinflated ego.

That was government abuse. In my eyes, the government is everybody who is tied to the system or has the power to influence it. Those recounts were, though I believe Gore should have won that election, if not abuse by the government, abuse OF the government.

You're assuming I'm not already.

Try not to be scared of any of it. I'm a fairly politically involved person, especially for my age, and I look at the government in the sense of what it does for me. My water runs, my schools teach me, my roads work, my mail gets here. If taxes are raised slightly, I and my family take to heart the fact that what we pay funds everything around us and keeps it going. Government corruption doesn't affect us nearly as much as we think. Are soldiers standing on your streets? Are we living in an oppressive totalitarian society? No. Do other people? YES. We are well off. Our government will never be perfect, and the past twenty years or so has been characterized by a declining government, with the exception of the Clinton years, when we did well.

I don't know about his policies, but Obama is, at least from what we can see, a decent and intelligent man. I don't think the government is as prone to corruption with him as it could be.

But we have to accept, as a society, that the government sustains us and that being paranoid over it to the point that you won't let it at least try to help us is stupid.

My main problem is that stupid anti-government nuts cling on to their paranoid fears, but CLING TO THE CONSTITUTION LIKE SOME MANNER OF STICKY THING. The Constitution was written by the men of the government, and people act as if it's the be-all end-all of arguments, just because it has the word 'Freedom' plastered all over it. We have become so obsessed with the word that we have forgotten its true meaning. Homeless people have the freedom to starve, and I'm sure they're grateful for that. No, we have the freedom to 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, which is inhibited by a lack of guidance. Mountain men had all the freedom in the world, and all they could do with it was get lost and die.

How is my idea better than what you currently have. Under my idea there is no 3 day waiting period. You get your license then whenever you want to buy a gun you just go to the dealer they check your license online or via a system similar to credit cards and presto you get your gun.

This takes a load off the agencies who have to run a background check for each and every gun purchase. The background check is done once and then the courts simply update the database when an order is placed that bans them from having a gun. This also means that law abiding citizens do not have to wait 3 days to buy their gun. The wait is unnecessary, especially for people who own multiple firearms.

At 3/18/09 02:03 PM, zephiran wrote:
Well, I don´t know of any tests that will guarantee a 100% thorough and complete analysis of a persons psychological state, but I do know what a psychologist generally classifies as an impaired mental state:

- Overly destructive behaviour
- Manodepression
- Multipersonality
- Other characteristics of a Psychotic state of mind

The troubling thing, I find, in this is that i feel that people don't have to have an effective mental illness to snap. Before allowing someone to carry I gun, I think it would be best to also do a psychological test to see how they deal with anger, fear and sorts. Anyone wielding a gun should go through anger management and some classes that teach when it is okay to draw a gun.

At 3/18/09 11:41 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Wrong. It also means

I'm wrong, but you go on to admit I'm right anyway. FUNNY.

It almost NEVER lasts a trip down to the local gun store.

But how long does the average massacre take to plan? People tend to forget that Harris and Klebold built 99 bombs to use at Columbine, and the Cho got his guns a few months in advance. Things change.

Because I think the police officer might approach the situation differently if he knew the person inside, who is presumably angry, has a lethal weapon.

The only way it would work the way you claim it is if the person walked in and said, "Hi, I'm (your name), and I'm here to hold up the place!" Then the cops could phone ahead and find out what guns the guy owns IF those are the guns he's actually using them. Otherwise, you're left with "unkown assailant with firearm, send help," sorta the way it is now.

What, do you think police will start storming the houses of everybody who doesn't have a gun if a list is released to the government?

No, I think that if the government goes rogue, I'll be one of the first ones they come after because I own a gun. An unarmed populace is easier to deal with.

We both knew damn well that not every state's laws are like Tennessee's.

And you site the bluest state in the fucking union as proof of that?

No, you're paranoid.

I'd rather be paranoid than naive.

Gun registration targets people who can commit gun crimes, namely, everybody who has a gun registered.

See what you did there? You just blanket categorized every law abiding citizen (me included) as being a potential criminal in need of government surveillance. Congratulations, you're reinforcing your ability to alienate people against your platform all the time.

even if it requires some privacy invasion.

....

To me, having your name on a list is not too much of an invasion of privacy.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

I do know that our government hasn't been trustworthy

But you trust them enough not to abuse a list of names of gun buyers. This went from being funny to being pathetic real quick.

Try not to be scared of any of it.

I get that you're idealistic, but your ideals center around expanding the power of government with little acknowledgment of basic human rights. To me, that is scarier than a government capable of intruding on people's personal lives, because it shows that there is actually someone out there who supports it happening.

But we have to accept, as a society, that the government sustains us and that being paranoid over it to the point that you won't let it at least try to help us is stupid.

We both see the government as something that can be beneficial to the people, but how they are beneficial is is where you and I diverge in philosophy. What many people seem to forget (you included) is that government is supposed to work for us, not us for them. We pay into the system, they pool the resources and take care of basic needs like roads and schools and other things like that.

It was not meant to be an all-encompassing entity that lords over the people. You, and others like you seem to forget that such lording-over was the reason this country was founded to begin with, and it's the reason why you enjoy the rights you do now.

The Constitution was written by the men of the government, and people act as if it's the be-all end-all of arguments

The Constitution was written by normal men, men who did not make it their business what people did in their personal lives, men who did not give themselves annual raises at the taxpayer's expense without our permission, men who upon leaving office often times died in abject poverty because they did not consider the office of the president something that should be profited from for personal gain.

At 3/19/09 01:07 PM, JoS wrote: This takes a load off the agencies who have to run a background check for each and every gun purchase.

It also costs those agencies fees for background checks. I'm particularly curious to see how you respond, considering that background checks are usually done at the federal level, as well as at the state and local level.

So... paying one flat fee every two or three years.... or paying one fluctuating fee (because gun shops will typically tack on an additional service fee) every time you pay for a background check to get a gun.... I guess you could compensate by making the fee to get a license exorbitantly expensive, but then what would be the incentive in buying a gun legally?

Hell, a guy at work offered sell me a .357 Magnum Desert Eagle earlier this week. And there's no law on background checks for person-to-person gun sales.

The FBI check is merely a criminal record check, as the FBI maintains the database on behalf of all law enforcement in the US. This is literally just an automatic database query. Type in the name and DOB and in 10 seconds you have an answer.

The fee for a license would not be an expensive one and you only have to pay it every couple of years when you renew your license, no different then a passport or hunting license. I am assuming there is a surcharge every time you buy a gun to have the background check done, or it is factored into the price of the gun.

I am not talking about charging an arm and a leg, plus this will cut down on the paperwork you have to do when going through a dealer and create a more efficient stream-lined service rather than the mishmash you have now.

At 3/19/09 09:35 PM, JoS wrote: The fee for a license would not be an expensive one and you only have to pay it every couple of years when you renew your license, no different then a passport or hunting license. I am assuming there is a surcharge every time you buy a gun to have the background check done, or it is factored into the price of the gun.

But here's the thing; right now, the charge for a background check is done every time you go to purchase a gun, you're opting for one charge every few years.

How many millions of dollars is the government going to loose from doing this under your system? And how likely do you think ANYONE will back this once they see that number?

Right now the fee for a handgun check is $8 in Wisconsin. The ACTUAL cost of the check is estimated to be $13. So in reality no one is making money off the checks, they are loosing money.

So for the state of Wisconsin alone there is a multi-million dollar deficit running for background checks. Yet you continue to back that system. Do you still agree now that you know the numbers?

Under my system you do not need to do an exhaustive, multi-layered check for every gun purchase. No extra research needs to be done, its one stop shopping. Under the current system multiple database queries are done, and additionally extra research may need to be done on certain individuals, driving up costs.

The problem is many states and even some counties have imposed additional checks on top of the NICS, especialyl for hand-guns. Even the NICS program is slow and only covers criminal reasons, as far as I am aware it does not cover mental health unless the person is committed involuntarily to a mental hospital or is found not-guilty due to insantiy.

Source 1

Source 2

Background check fees are kind of like the Sin-Tax of the gun owner world; the government's not going to give up a chance to screw SOMEBODY over to compensate for budget shortfalls. They're raising the prices on legally required background checks not so much to discourage people from buying guns, they're doing because they need to extra cash to make up for the budget shortfall in other areas. And they know there are people out there who will begrudgingly pay for it, much the same way smokers do whenever the cost of a pack goes up because of taxes levied on them.

If you go from multiple background checks over the lifetime of a single gunowner to just one, you're just going to hurt the local government that much more. They'll find a way to make up that extra cash one way or another. They'll jack up the price on gas, liquor, cigarettes, try to raise property and income taxes... or they'll just try to figure out how many guns the locals buy over a lifetime, come up with an average number of background checks they would need, and base the fee for getting a license on that.

Which brings me back to my other point; there are no laws regarding background checks on person-to-person gun sales.

And uh... btw.... even WITH a swipe card, it's still going to have to go through the NICS database. The same one that can take up to three days to get an answer back from.

So... how is this idea an improvement, again?

I'm wrong, but you go on to admit I'm right anyway. FUNNY.

No, you didn't mention the safety test.

But how long does the average massacre take to plan? People tend to forget that Harris and Klebold built 99 bombs to use at Columbine, and the Cho got his guns a few months in advance. Things change.

These are the kind of people who do not commit crimes of passion, they're just insane. School shootings are not crimes of passion.

The only way it would work the way you claim it is if the person walked in and said, "Hi, I'm (your name), and I'm here to hold up the place!" Then the cops could phone ahead and find out what guns the guy owns IF those are the guns he's actually using them. Otherwise, you're left with "unkown assailant with firearm, send help," sorta the way it is now.

What about a suspected criminal, say for rape or robbery or something, and the police are arriving at his door to take him in for questioning? I'm sure the knowledge of whether on not the man in side will change their approach.

What, do you think police will start storming the houses of everybody who doesn't have a gun if a list is released to the government?

No, I think that if the government goes rogue, I'll be one of the first ones they come after because I own a gun. An unarmed populace is easier to deal with.

No, because if the government goes rogue and goes after gun owners, they'd have to kill at least 30% of the population, and if they kill roughly 100 million people, you have MUCH bigger problems to worry about than that. If you kill all gun owners, you also kill all protesters, dissenters, and, in all likelihood, immigrants. I don't thing that the US government will ever go to such lengths.

And you site the bluest state in the fucking union as proof of that?

I cite the state that I live in. Where I want the card idea to be passed most. BECAUSE I LIVE THERE.

I'd rather be paranoid than naive.

I'd rather be sane than paranoid.

See what you did there? You just blanket categorized every law abiding citizen (me included) as being a potential criminal in need of government surveillance. Congratulations, you're reinforcing your ability to alienate people against your platform all the time.

I said that every law abiding citizen has the POTENTIAL to be a criminal. Which is absolutely true. You, me, our mothers, anybody. And since the gun registration list targets gun owners, it treats everybody on the list like a potential gun-crime committer. It does not say that only gun owners can be criminals, it says only gun owners can commit gun crimes. Which is true.

....

Uh-huh. Yes. I just said that law enforcement is more important than the privacy I lose when my name is on a list.

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

Privacy and liberty are two different things. Having a gun list does not restrict you of your rights or prevent you from doing anything.

I do know that our government hasn't been trustworthy

But you trust them enough not to abuse a list of names of gun buyers. This went from being funny to being pathetic real quick.

Again, you can't be paranoid and say everybody not as paranoid as you is stupid and naive. Paranoid and wary do not mean the same thing. Paranoid is a negative trait. I've mentioned several times that the trouble the government would have to go to to ELIMINATE all gun owners is absolutely insane, even with a list. Do you really thing the American Government would ever really turn to mass genocide? Do you wake up every day thinking that you and your gun are the only things keeping America from being a fascist dictatorship? The funny thing is that this paranoia escalated since gun-nut Bush came into office, as elected and now distanced from people like you.

I get that you're idealistic, but your ideals center around expanding the power of government with little acknowledgment of basic human rights. To me, that is scarier than a government capable of intruding on people's personal lives, because it shows that there is actually someone out there who supports it happening.

I don't support privacy invasion, but at the moment we probably have the LEAST intrusive government of any on the planet and we STILL complain. Your life isn't a mysterious blot on tax reforms, by principal the government already probably knows most everything about you. Without trying. I don't care if the government peeks a little bit, because it doesn't destroy my freedoms or hurt me, and so far your entire argument has been, "The government spied on us, mass genocide is the next step."

But we have to accept, as a society, that the government sustains us and that being paranoid over it to the point that you won't let it at least try to help us is stupid.

We both see the government as something that can be beneficial to the people, but how they are beneficial is is where you and I diverge in philosophy. What many people seem to forget (you included) is that government is supposed to work for us, not us for them. We pay into the system, they pool the resources and take care of basic needs like roads and schools and other things like that.

It was not meant to be an all-encompassing entity that lords over the people. You, and others like you seem to forget that such lording-over was the reason this country was founded to begin with, and it's the reason why you enjoy the rights you do now.

I know why I enjoy my rights, but having a little trust in the government is not allowing it to lord over us. I don't care who works for who, as long as I keep my rights. But I have the right to die a lonely, isolated death. As long as the government keeps us happy, I don't see any problem. Some people are made happy by knowledge, so let them learn! There is a difference in between a government that keeps it's people content through lies and propaganda, and a government that, sure, invades our privacy, but helps us through the day and stays only moderately corrupt. Like ours. I love our Democracy, and I will die to fight for it. But our system isn't perfect, and there is compromise somewhere.

The Constitution was written by normal men, men who did not make it their business what people did in their personal lives, men who did not give themselves annual raises at the taxpayer's expense without our permission, men who upon leaving office often times died in abject poverty because they did not consider the office of the president something that should be profited from for personal gain.

But that's the thing. Normal men ARE the government. They are just like us. Greedy and selfish. Angry and deceitful. Then and now. The Constitution is an amazing work of genius and democracy. However, it, like everything else, can be improved. So why don't we let ourselves improve it?

We can't let the prospect of freedom blind us from the fact that absolute freedom is as false a promise as our privacy. Have you ever let a repairman into your house? Or let out your phone number, or address online? Or your guns? We act as though we are entitled to privacy, and even if we are, we don't have it. The only people who ever had their privacy were the mountain men. Our lives are public, but you, and most people, don't think of the government as a group of people, but as a dragon of some sorts, and therefor are terrified of it knowing who you are.

But please, answer me directly. Do you think, as things are, that the US government, with a list of who owns guns, would take military action against at least a third of its people? Slaughter?

Because I don't.

Why slaughter your populace when you can merely deem gun owners automatic felons and use the enforcement implements already in place to "lower the risk of gun violence through reducing legal firearms?"

That's what the AWB was for, wasn't it?

At 3/17/09 10:58 PM, Proteas wrote:
in the end they're both just politicians who are out to make themselves look good for the media spotlight.

Last time I checked that was part of the job description. Doesn't reflect their real sentiments, just shows how good they are at maintaining an image.

Also you guys can't beat my idea for a new status quo. Which you should agree with, because, if you have a gun. You don't need a gov't.

At 3/19/09 11:57 PM, Proteas wrote: And uh... btw.... even WITH a swipe card, it's still going to have to go through the NICS database. The same one that can take up to three days to get an answer back from.

So... how is this idea an improvement, again?

Automated. No more need to call a call center, send in paperwork etc etc etc. Also by harmonizing background checks we eliminate the redundancy many states have that costs more money. It will literally be just like a credit card authorization. Does not take 3 days for you to find out if your credit card is still valid.

The human factor is what slows it down the most. Also since you have a license you will have a unique serial number or ID number. So if there are two John Smiths with the same birth date you don't have to do more investigation to figure out if this John Smith can have a gun, or if it the other John Smith who can't.

And did you even bother to read what what i posted. Many governments are loosing money on background checks. Some sin-tax. Usually a sin-tax boosts revenues, not causing short-falls themselves. Does it make sense to keep a redundant system that costs a lot of money?

My idea is more budget friendly. The cost of the license would be more than the cost of a single background check, but it would be valid for a number of years, so spread out over multiple purchases it ends up being cheaper. Additionally even private sales would be required to follow these rules, helping to ensure that people who shouldn't have guns cannot buy them legally by any means. By not having to recoup costs from dealers it is easier to get private owners to abide by these rules. The main reason private sales are not covered now is because of the logistical challenge of getting the costs from the seller.

Know what loses the most money. Having a government.

At 3/20/09 09:48 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Why slaughter your populace when you can merely deem gun owners automatic felons and use the enforcement implements already in place to "lower the risk of gun violence through reducing legal firearms?"

That's what the AWB was for, wasn't it?

Because America doesn't have enough jails to hold 50 million-100 million people. It's either slaughter or nothing.

At 3/20/09 12:58 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

At 3/20/09 09:48 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Why slaughter your populace when you can merely deem gun owners automatic felons and use the enforcement implements already in place to "lower the risk of gun violence through reducing legal firearms?"

That's what the AWB was for, wasn't it?

Because America doesn't have enough jails to hold 50 million-100 million people. It's either slaughter or nothing.

Because all felons are imprisoned forever?

You need to read between the lines sometimes and try to understand what being a felon actually means in terms of constitutional rights like suffrage and bearing arms....

....or just assert lame sauce as though it were hot... yet again.

Because all felons are imprisoned forever?

America doesn't have enough prison space to hold that many people, regardless for how long they are held.

It's not like they're going to have a Round Robin approach to it, "This million has been imprisoned for 5 years, let them out and let the next million in."

At 3/20/09 01:03 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

The only way it would work the way you claim it is if the person walked in and said, "Hi, I'm (your name), and I'm here to hold up the place!" Then the cops could phone ahead and find out what guns the guy owns IF those are the guns he's actually using them. Otherwise, you're left with "unkown assailant with firearm, send help," sorta the way it is now.

What about a suspected criminal, say for rape or robbery or something, and the police are arriving at his door to take him in for questioning? I'm sure the knowledge of whether on not the man in side will change their approach.

Since criminals almost always get their guns illegally, this system would be virtually useless. It'd identify homes with registered guns, but not home with unregistered guns, which, are the homes the police most typically are going to.

I said that every law abiding citizen has the POTENTIAL to be a criminal. Which is absolutely true. You, me, our mothers, anybody. And since the gun registration list targets gun owners, it treats everybody on the list like a potential gun-crime committer. It does not say that only gun owners can be criminals, it says only gun owners can commit gun crimes. Which is true.

We should get a list of all men too since they are potential rape-crime committers.

At 3/20/09 12:45 PM, JoS wrote:

At 3/19/09 11:57 PM, Proteas wrote: And uh... btw.... even WITH a swipe card, it's still going to have to go through the NICS database. The same one that can take up to three days to get an answer back from.

So... how is this idea an improvement, again?

Does not take 3 days for you to find out if your credit card is still valid.

You realize the I in NICS stands for "instant" don't you? Most states you get an immediate response - there is no three day check. If there is a three day check its due to a state's requirement, not the federal government's.

At 3/20/09 07:31 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: You realize the I in NICS stands for "instant" don't you? Most states you get an immediate response - there is no three day check. If there is a three day check its due to a state's requirement, not the federal government's.

Mosts times you get aa response quickly, within a few hours or less. Sometimes you have to wait three days though, especially if there are any discrepancies, like multiple individuals with same name and DOB, or if some other further research is required. By having each individual assigned a unique ID number with their license, at POS delays are reduced to almost nothing because any issues with multiple names can be dealt with immediately when it reaches the office, not every time a check is done.

At 3/20/09 01:03 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: What about a suspected criminal, say for rape or robbery or something, and the police are arriving at his door to take him in for questioning? I'm sure the knowledge of whether on not the man in side will change their approach.

Rape is a felony, and under U.S. Law you automatically loose the right to purchase guns for life anyway (which I'm surprised you didn't know), same for robbery depending on the amount taken. "Suspected criminal" wouldn't work for this argument under your system anyway because they wouldn't be necessarily be registered to buy a gun, now would they?

Also, this idea still predicates on the idea that (a) the perpetrator clearly identifying himself by his real name or (b) actually being at the residence where the cops go to and him having his legally registered weapon on his person at the time, which doesn't take into account that criminals wouldn't sign up to legally buy a gun to begin with.

I'd rather be sane than paranoid.

Paranoia =/= insanity. It might be defined as an irrational psychosis, but I've laid out my reasons for why I'm paranoid of our government, and you. And I have as yet to have anyone besides you claim me insane for being wary of the government or the arguments you've put forth, and that's only because you've been taking my arguments and throwing them back to me an with an appeal to ridicule twist on them.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't believe the government will necessarily come at me with guns blazing because I have (or will have) guns. Even if I wasn't wary of our government's disrespect of personal privacy rights as of late, I'd still be wary of anyone saying that I should give up that right for my own personal freedom.

Just because you're on the left doesn't mean your ideas are inherently better than those presented by members of the right.

It does not say that only gun owners can be criminals, it says only gun owners can commit gun crimes. Which is true.

No, what you're saying is that legal gun owners who would be part of this license system are potential criminals and should be monitored as such. That is not a statement that will help you win friends and influence, especially out here in the "flyover states."

Uh-huh. Yes. I just said that law enforcement is more important than the privacy I lose when my name is on a list.

So... what incentive is there to be on the list, then?

Nobody here has answered that question, or provided a response to the fact that there are no laws regarding background checks and licensing for person to person sales. And to drive this point home; $750. My coworker offered me a .357 Magnum Desert Eagle for $750.

What's stopping me from buying said weapon, either now, or under your system? Because I sure as hell don't see any incentive in signing up for a gun license under your system at this point.

Privacy and liberty are two different things. Having a gun list does not restrict you of your rights or prevent you from doing anything.

Privacy is considered a right under the consitution (see 4th and 9th amendments), and the 14th amendment re-enforces that right to privacy (for women inparticular) through the Roe V Wade case.

Liberty is defined as the ability to go about your life free from government harassment, the law was written to support that, and you're going to sit there an honestly try to argue that privacy is not a right I should enjoy.

I don't support privacy invasion

.... are you just parodying yourself at this point?

You just argued that you were fully in support of the government keeping a list of gun owners because legal gun owners are potential criminals, you just argued that you were fully for invasion of privacy where personal security was a concern, and then you cap the whole thing off by claiming you DON'T support privacy invasions?

This is a joke, right? Just admit it, you're just messing with me at this point.

Normal men ARE the government.

That's not the argument I was refuting, I was pointing out that the constitution was written by normal men, not politicians by today's standards.

But please, answer me directly. Do you think, as things are, that the US government, with a list of who owns guns, would take military action against at least a third of its people? Slaughter?

I never used the word "slaughter," I just said "come after." The scenario presented by LazyDrunk (which you conveniently ignored) is more likely to happen than anything.

At 3/20/09 12:45 PM, JoS wrote: And did you even bother to read what what i posted.

Yeah, I read it, they said they were going to almost triple the fee for background checks in order to help cover both the cost of the check and budget shortfalls in other areas. What you failed to acknowledge was the fact that if you eliminated said background check fee, what cash they would have brought in from having those fees up so high will have to be made up for from other areas, like raising taxes or cutting the budget in other areas.

At 3/20/09 08:06 PM, JoS wrote: By having each individual assigned a unique ID number with their license, at POS delays are reduced to almost nothing because any issues with multiple names can be dealt with immediately when it reaches the office, not every time a check is done.

Uh huh.... so.... what's stopping someone from stealing my number and buying guns under my good name, sort of like how people can steal your social security number and fuck up your credit now?