Any chance for a reasonable discussion about guns?

SV reX said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Sounds like we agree on almost all points. 
 

I left school shootings out intentionally. I think it's a subset that gets addressed among the other things. 
 

OK, regarding police actions... I agree there is a lot to fix.  Do you think it's wise to tie law enforcement changes to gun control changes?  They seem like 2 different issues to me. 

I see your point. Here is my reasoning and it is anecdotal. But my cousin is a cop. He told me that because of this Supreme Court ruling he has no duty to help me or protect me, so that I need to get a gun for protection.   I mention this becuse I see that if we have a better police force with less crime there is just a lower demand for guns.  That's all. 

SV reX said:

In reply to fusion66 :

Ok. I hear you saying you are satisfied with the background check process in your state. 
 

Do you think it should be standardized across state lines?

I am not satisfied with the background check in my state. I think it is better than nothing, but I would be fine with having all transactions including private sales  going  through the federal database checks. 

Maybe I am not finding the right information but in general terms it looks like all FFL's are accessing the federal database either  through a state entity or directly with the FBI.  If they want to close up the gap regarding private sales and put those through the database as well, I would support that. 

I think we are one the same page that improvements can be made. We are not on the same page that the current system is worthless. (edit) Apologies - you did not state that the current system is worthless. Sorry about that.

SV reX said:

In reply to fusion66 :

Ok. I hear you saying you are satisfied with the background check process in your state. 
 

What I am reading is that at Gander Mountain in Indiana it mostly works.

How does it work there for gun shows?  Private sellers?  Other businesses?  Are they checking the federal database, or are these denials just because of state level violations?

Im not an expert on Indiana law, these are honest questions.  A quick googling shows that non-licensed dealers have no need to run a background check.  Also (I can't find a clear statement on this) it appears that the check only applies to handguns?

In reply to fusion66 :

Just to clarify... I do not think what we have is worthless. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Your discussion is with Anthony. I'm just trying to get the two of you to actually communicate instead of shouting back and forth across the room.

My thoughts on gun control have been stated previously in this thread. Until people are willing to go through the amendment process and change 2a, we already have more federal gun control than the Constitution allows. The whys of owning guns shouldn't even enter the conversation. 

While I feel NICS background checks are reasonable and adding mental illness to the database is also reasonable, Red Flag laws are a reach. They are going to be difficult to implement unless we are going to start limiting rights without due process and that comes back to that pesky Constitution. 

It will be interesting to see what the congress critters come up with over the next few weeks.  

In reply to ProDarwin :

I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure those kinds of questions work very well.   They sound suggestive, or even accusatory. 
 

Do you think your questions about details in Indiana were covered by my question "Do you think it should be standardized across state lines?"

I know you are asking more details. I'm just trying to see what it feels like to really be listening to others, not being suggestive or critical in comments or questions. 

In reply to ProDarwin :

For Indiana, to be a legal gun dealer you need an FFL and an Indiana handgun dealer license.  

All guns in Indiana are subject to the background check (long guns and handguns). 

Federal law requires federally licensed firearms dealers (but not private sellers) to initiate a background check on the purchaser prior to sale of a firearm. Federal law provides states with the option of serving as a state “point of contact” and conducting their own background checks using state, as well as federal, records and databases, or having the checks performed by the FBI using only the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database. (Note that state files are not always included in the federal database.)

Indiana is not a point of contact state for the NICS. Indiana law explicitly requires dealers to conduct a background check prior to transferring a handgun, by contacting the FBI directly.1 Although Indiana has no law explicitly requiring firearms dealers to initiate a background check prior to transferring a long gun, the federal law requires dealers to initiate a background check prior to the transfer of any kind of gun by contacting the FBI directly.2

Indiana does not require private sellers (sellers who are not licensed dealers) to initiate a background check when transferring a firearm. See our Private Sales policy summary.

In reply to SV reX :

Edited my comment to note that - sorry about that.

In reply to Toyman! :

I agree with your position on 2A. 
 

Do you think there is reason to reconsider 2A  specifically related to standardizing licensing laws in a uniform manner across state lines?

In reply to Toyman! :

...or more specifically, Do you think there should be standardization across state lines for licensing and permitting?  If so, what do you see as the best way to achieve that?

In reply to SV reX :

No, that would be the 10th. 

In reply to SV reX :

I don't have a problem with any standardization. My sole concern is that we do it by the book.

Stop ignoring laws we have in our rush to create more. 

SV reX said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

I hear what you are saying, but I am not sure those kinds of questions work very well.   They sound suggestive, or even accusatory. 
 

Do you think your questions about details in Indiana were covered by my question "Do you think it should be standardized across state lines?"

Fair.

Probably, but depends on the standards :)

SV reX said:

In reply to Toyman! :

...or more specifically, Do you think there should be standardization across state lines for licensing and permitting?  If so, what do you see as the best way to achieve that?

My guess is that it will be highly likely some states won't like whatever policy they are forced to accept in that standardization.  They will argue to SCOTUS that compromise is an infringement on the 2A rights of their citizens.  

In reply to stroker :

Agreed. And that may mean revising 2A is necessary (as Toyman has said). 
 

I think there are ways to standardize that do not infringe on 2A. 

1988RedT2 said:

barefootcyborg5000 said:

Ive said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to see the worst atrocities committed against innocent people throughout history, look at government. Especially be wary of one that often acts as a global police force. 

This very much merits repeating, especially in light of the fact that we have, here in the U.S., at this very moment, people being incarcerated for the simple fact that their political leanings are in opposition to the sitting government.  It's not just the "oppressive regimes" in Russia and Communist China and elsewhere.  It's right here.

What are you talking about? Who is sitting in jail because of their political opinions? 

Toyman! said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

Your discussion is with Anthony. I'm just trying to get the two of you to actually communicate instead of shouting back and forth across the room.

While I feel NICS background checks are reasonable and adding mental illness to the database is also reasonable, Red Flag laws are a reach. They are going to be difficult to implement unless we are going to start limiting rights without due process and that comes back to that pesky Constitution. 

Red Flag Laws do have due process (which is going to court before the order is placed) except ex parte orders (where LE takes the guns before the hearing) which still have a hearing afterwords and a mechanism by which to restore the property and reimburse the accused if found not applicable . Ex Parte orders have been Constitutionally upheld in every case so far, and different states have different tiers of evidence that must be shown before issuing an ex parte (which still has to be issued by a judge after seeing evidence). https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1298&context=ulr

gearheadmb said:

1988RedT2 said:

barefootcyborg5000 said:

Ive said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to see the worst atrocities committed against innocent people throughout history, look at government. Especially be wary of one that often acts as a global police force. 

This very much merits repeating, especially in light of the fact that we have, here in the U.S., at this very moment, people being incarcerated for the simple fact that their political leanings are in opposition to the sitting government.  It's not just the "oppressive regimes" in Russia and Communist China and elsewhere.  It's right here.

What are you talking about? Who is sitting in jail because of their political opinions? 

Seconded. Who is in jail because of their political opinions?

I had this thought about halfway through a run I was doing, so it might be a harebrained idea:

Periodic mental health checks for firearms owners at no cost. I'm not sure what the frequency would be or anything, just throwing it out there. This would have to be combined with some sort of red flag law.

I realize the unintended consequences of this may be large.

stroker said:

SV reX said:

In reply to Toyman! :

...or more specifically, Do you think there should be standardization across state lines for licensing and permitting?  If so, what do you see as the best way to achieve that?

My guess is that it will be highly likely some states won't like whatever policy they are forced to accept in that standardization.  They will argue to SCOTUS that compromise is an infringement on the 2A rights of their citizens.  

This is for Toyman and SV reX:

We are talking about different things I think. There are no current Federal laws for licensing or permitting (bar fringe things like full auto machine guns, historical artifacts, and silencers; we're talking about standard pistols and long guns that Citizens can legally acquire in all 50 states under 2A). States have the right to issue licenses and permits, and are typically done for things like concealed carry. When people quote thee 10th and talk about regulating inter-state commerce, it's about licenses and how they interact. While I personally think a tiered license system administered by the states to Federal standards (like driver's licenses and CDL's) tied to basic firearm safety training would be a good thing, I can also appreciate how some fear that as government overreach, infringement, and a creation of "database".

The laws that are being discussed to standardize across the country are for background checks which are the go/no-go on a sale of a firearm based on Constitutionally-protected status. Thess are the laws that are patchwork across the country with serious holes. There is no database of "cans", just databases (plural) of can-NOTs. Wanting every state to equally check all databases of people who are NOT Constitutionally allowed firearms does not violate the 10th or 2nd. If this were standardized across the country, it would likely make it easier/faster for those who can buy firearms to do so with minimal waiting (imagine a digital check, and the system green lights as you stand there at the register and you can walk out same day). 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

The roof Koreans use case is very different than the vs. an oppressive government use case.  One is possible and needs to be prepared for.  I live in minnespolis and have friends who had their brothers restaurant burned down in the George Floyd riots( thanks out of towner boog boys).   The other is fantasy in this day and age.  Bringing up use cases from hundreds of years ago dosent work anymore. Technology has changed and the average American is so far away from the discomfort and fitness level of  Average life during the 1700's that there is no way this is possible. 
 

Yes, I acknowledged that was a bit of a tangent, but should be part of the conversation. A big argument of why people don't need guns is that the government will protect them. That is demonstratably fantasy. I think you are missing an important piece of the puzzle though when you mention the discomfort and fitness level of the average life then Vs. now. You are technically correct- but it doesn't matter. Because it's relative. What we see now as a tough life was normal to them. We live like kings today, but many people are unhappy.  They are constantly told why they should be unhappy and that they should be angry. I would argue that the level of mental discomfort is higher today than it was back then. This is backed up by our suicide rate, which is directly related to people committing mass shootings. A personal example. I took my kids on vacation last week. Long road trip with three kids in our 8 seat Telluride. They had plenty of room, their own A/C, chargers for their devices, cooler full of drinks, snacks. Contrast that to my childhood road trips. Four kids sharing the back seat of a 2 door car. No A/C, just windows cracked enough to blow our parent's cigarette smoke and ashes into our faces. We didn't have iPads, just iWindows to peer out of. And we were just fine, because we didn't know any better. My kids? They made themselves miserable, fighting over the "best" seat. Or complaining if they sat closest to the cooler and had to get the drinks out. Their mental level of discomfort was higher than ours, despite their much greater physical comfort. I've threatened to buy a similar Oldsmobile Cutlass for our next road trip, and to take up smoking. 

I think people also forget that the continental army basically lost all engagements until France jumped in on our side.   The case could be made thst the colonialists were just a useful instrument for France to get one up on the English, which would then be turned around during the napoleonic times.  We weren't as exceptional as we think now.  Our history lessons have been poor and we now look backwards with very rose tinted glasses.  To throw a further wrench in here and go on a tangent, the case could be made that the American revolution was not a populist revolt but one first perpetrated by a bunch of rich guys who didn't like taxes.   They engineered a bunch of clashes with the British that stirred up public dissent and that was the start of that.  It all started with money and not principles. The principles later came in to fit the narrative. 
 

That is not much different from events of today. France would not have provided support to a lost cause of unarmed citizens, just as we would not be supporting Ukraine had they not taken up arms and shown a willingness and ability to fight. Much of the current discourse in this county of fueled by those getting rich off of it. The more things change, the more they stay the same. 

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

I don't think that governments will always protect their citizens. But I can vote with my feet and I plan on developing a quiver of passports to get me out of bad situations.  I see no need to stay in one country and fight the government. Just leave. 
 

This YouTube channel is interesting. 
 

https://youtube.com/c/nomadcapitalist

a golden visa and fast lane pass to citizenship in Portugal costs $300k. Just buy a house over there live in it for a few months a year for 5 years and boom EU passport. 

I'm curious,  has anyone changed their mind 'about guns' because of what they read here?

I have learned a little about guns and more about people.  My gun opinions remain unchanged,  but it's been a worthy read from time to time.

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

That is exactly what the thread was for, to learn, not change minds.  From the 1st post:

I'd love to see what others believe and why. I do not think there is any right or wrong answer, and this is not the thread to try and convince anyone. I hope it can stay and be discussed. 
 

In reply to Steve_Jones :

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

That is exactly what the thread was for, to learn, not change minds.  From the 1st post:

I'd love to see what others believe and why. I do not think there is any right or wrong answer, and this is not the thread to try and convince anyone. I hope it can stay and be discussed. 
 

I think more important than changing minds is opening minds. Listening to the opposing views is important. You may still disagree, but understanding why they have those views is important if there is to be any hope of a resolution. Too often we are told that there are only two answers and we are deeply divided, but often the truth is somewhere near the middle. I learned a lot from this discussion. I would say that I'm more open to some controls- specifically more consistently applied controls- with the stipulation that we proceed cautiously and get buy in from both sides. 

I want to thank the moderators for letting this go on, and for those involved for self policing when things got too close to the line.