Re: Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018

x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 10:00:38 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper


How about we set the law also to make it illegal for anyone to *sell* (or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background check has cleared? The law we have isn't effective because it has way too many "loopholes". How about closing all of the obvious loopholes?
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2018 1:21 PM, !Jones wrote:

How about observing that there's no need to restrict rights of law-abiding people, and that we already have laws making murder, assault, robbery, etc. illegal?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 18:45:34 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just

I understand the logic; however, it's a tad bit simplistic. If we say that you can't sell your guns onto the street, your rights are not being violated in any way... you can still sell your gun and buy one in a different color.
If I were a nasty old criminal, how long do you think it would take me to get my dick-skinners on a gun here in DFW? (I know; I'm pretty smart for a criminal.)
Having a law requiring background checks on less than half of the gun sales is like building defensive fortifications on half of the border. Come to think of it, I heard a story once about some country who did that in the WWII foreplay... France, wasn't it? It wasn't very effective... maybe they should have used "No Trespassing" signs instead?
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2018 7:28 PM, !Jones wrote:

Your statement, to which I was responding and which you blithely clipped to make following the conversation unnecessarily difficult, is "How about we set the law also to make it illegal for anyone to *sell* (or transfer for any reason) a gun unless a thorough background check has cleared?" Your statement is more than a tad bit simplistic. You assume that such a law would make it more difficult for criminals to acquire guns. You offer no evidence that it would. It looks like the primary effect of such a law would be to make legitimate transactions needlessy cumbersome.
Can you point to a single instance where a background check was effective in preventing a crime? NO, I thought not.
BTW, what do you mean by "transfer"? Do you mean to convey legal title, or to transfer actual possession, either temporarily or permanently? If I take a friend to a shooting range and he want to try out my gun, do I have to run a background check on him first? After all, if I hand him my gun I have made a transfer.

Maybe an hour or less, REGARDLESS of any background check laws. No background check law will keep a criminal who wants a gun from getting a gun, or even make it particularly difficult to get one.

No it's not.
Background checks did not exist before 1993. The USA got along just fine without them for over two centuries. They are a "feel good" response that does nothing to actually prevent crimes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes
On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:28:23 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just

We live in a different world now than we did in 1993.
A background check that is rigorously and uniformly enforced is far more likely to block a prohibited person from obtaining a gun than is a half-assed law filled with loopholes, special cases, and exceptions. Why do you think it would not be more effective to close the loopholes? What do we have to lose?
I'll take one of your questions, then I will require that you answer mine: A person "transfers" a firearm when he or she sells, gifts, rents, or lends the device such that it leaves the owner's immediate supervisory control. If you and friend go to the range and you are present, fine. If your kid is going to a party and wants to borrow the gun, that's not fine. If you go on a guided hunt and the guide furnishes rifles; it's fine as long as a rep is there.
Good grief, you *know* what "transfer" means... quit being deliberately obtuse.
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Prepper
lines

the

*sell*

check

I'm not a lawmaker, but what's stopping you? And after your law is set and the bad guys ignore it, then you take our guns?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 19:52:12 -0500, in talk.politics.guns Red Prepper

Hoss, you're living in a dream world... this is simply the product of paranoia.
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/20/2018 11:20 PM, !Jones wrote:

That's really stupid. A strong secondary market means more used gun sales and therefore fewer new gun sales, which means less money, not more, for the gun industry.

More bullshit. The people you're concerned about, or should be, are criminals - people who couldn't care less about complying with the law.

UBC has nothing to do with what state gun control laws would be constitutional. You apparently think the extent of a person's constitutional rights should turn on what state he lives in. That's more bullshit.

When it comes to you, apparently you don't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:45:49 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just

When a group of founders sit down to codify a constitution, they *usually* realize that incorporating a set of individual rights is a good idea. Some people suggest that these rights are pre-existant and that the proposed constitution simply recognizes them; I have no opinion on that because there is no way of knowing. If one were to survey constitutions, one would tend to find this basic set of rights to be pretty much consistent. We find ours in the first amendment... they're in a different place in the Bolivian constitution; however, they're in it.
The second amendment means exactly what it says (what *all* of it says; please don't strip the first 13-word noun phrase.) It was written to assert local control of the armed forces; i.e.: the militia. Thus, Paul Revere rides through the country side calling: "To arms! To arms! Dem darn British is a'comin to take yo guns!" And the armed citizens all rouse and stand shoulder to shoulder upon the Concord green... is my history right?
And so, in August of 1814, Paul Revere rode again (well, since he was born in 1736, he was likely getting a little long in the tooth for that action.) OK, *somebody* rode around and called the people to arms because a regiment of British regulars were marching on Washington DC; within range of the call lived about 7,000 armed US citizens who were to assemble defending the bridge at Bladensburg, MD. The problem was that, unlike Concord, the people who received the call didn't live in or around Washington DC; they lived in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and essentially said: "That's Maryland's problem; we got no dog in that fight" and they didn't show up. Those who did ran before a shot was ever fired.
Well, sir, the British marched into Washington DC unopposed, almost captured James Madison and congress, looted the place, and burned most of the government buildings including the White House and the US capitol. The loss of our capitol was a staggering defeat that led directly to the Treaty of Ghent later that month which was essentially a surrender and signed a few months later; by that treaty, the war ended and restored the pre-war status quo... and the British gave us back Washington DC, or whatever was left of it, anyway. The War of 1812 was clearly a resounding defeat for the United States.
After that, we did away with the local militia as our primary armed force in favor of a standing army and the second amendment became a legislative artifact of the 18th century. The bottom line is that there are simply no such things as "gun rights". You have the *freedom* to own a gun if your state allows it; if they don't, you may petition your state legislature or move to another state.
I am aware that you and I profoundly disagree on this matter... but, then... I wasn't really speaking to *you* initially. You're welcome to your opinion; if you don't like mine, you're welcome to keep out of it.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
!Jones wrote on 4/22/2018 8:08 AM:

Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun nutters' favorite nuttery is to strip and use the Second Amendment out of context.
If a bank law says: "If you own the money in your bank account, the right of the people to withdraw and carry the money out of the bank, shall not be infringed", gun nutters will ignore the first part, and insist that "the right of the people to withdraw and carry the money out of the bank, shall not be infringed".
"Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used in 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control since 1933."
Army National Guard <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_National_Guard The Army National Guard (ARNG), in conjunction with the Air National Guard, is a militia force and a federal military reserve force of the United States. They are simultaneously part of two different organizations, the Army National Guard of the several states, territories and the District of Columbia (also referred to as the Militia of the United States), and the Army National Guard of the United States. The Army National Guard is divided into subordinate units stationed in each of the 50 states, three territories, and the District of Columbia, and operates under their respective governors.
Air National Guard <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_National_Guard The Air National Guard (ANG), also known as the Air Guard, is a federal military reserve force as well as the militia air force of each U.S. state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It, along with each state's, district's, commonwealth's or territory's Army National Guard component, makes up the National Guard of each state and the districts, commonwealths and territories as applicable.
When Air National Guard units are used under the jurisdiction of the state governor they are fulfilling their militia role. However, if federalized by order of the President of the United States, ANG units become an active part of the United States Air Force.[3] They are jointly administered by the states and the National Guard Bureau, a joint bureau of the Army and Air Force that oversees the National Guard of the United States.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 08:42:38 -0400, in talk.politics.guns NLQTS?? ?

Yes, thank you! We heard you.
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is no "loophole."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 20:33:41 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Ed Huntress

I think that the misconceptions come from looking at Swiss national law; their federal (they do use that term, right?) government is very small and weak by US standards; they have as few national laws as they can have. The gun laws are all in the cantons, I believe.
You are correct; the Swiss have an average (for western Europe) crime rate. Not great; not bad, either.
I have not had the pleasure of living there; however, I did the tourist thingy.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/17/2018 9:07 PM, !Jones wrote:

I did the tourist thingy too, many years ago.
In spite of 4 official languages, they appeared regional and I found Geneva to be predominantly French and Zurich, German.
I visited a gun shop their but stuff was fancy and pricey.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:07:23 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank

OK.
I hope to gain the pleasure of visiting soon.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
x-no-idiots: yes
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 23:37:00 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Gronk

That initial posting is a tad stale; however, <bottom line> if the US gun laws were modeled on Swiss laws, I'd be fine with it.
Jones
--
Quod si non verum est, non dicere est.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.