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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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. 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.
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
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.
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.