| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Private gun transfers
|
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:22:28 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. Sure, that's all true. But the real solution to gun deaths is dissolving the "romance of the gun." It's a simple killing instrument, and repellent to lovers of life. You've fallen in love with it, as have other here. And you're obviously part of the "gun culture." Who? Krause? If what you say is true, he'd be a hypocrite. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner behavior causes problems. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
|
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 10:57 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock by his father back in April. By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come up disallowing Roof from purchasing it. But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other states) does not require a background check for personal transfers. Seems we've had this debate before. You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the druggie son? Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists. Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they "transfer" a firearm within the household? This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family member outside the home. It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. I agree. It's really not a big deal and it certainly doesn't inhibit me from buying a gun. In fact, because a background check is required for the permit in the first place, there is no waiting period afterward when you want to purchase on. I can go to the gun shop, pick out a handgun, pay for it and take it home the same day. Of course if you are of the mindset that the purpose of registering a firearm to an owner is to create a database so the government knows who to confiscate them from someday, there's really no sense in having this discussion. The only complaint I have about the gun laws in MA is the previously mentioned "approved" list and the stupid way the AG's office and the state testing labs conflict. But, that's a different issue. |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock by his father back in April. By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come up disallowing Roof from purchasing it. But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other states) does not require a background check for personal transfers. Seems we've had this debate before. You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the druggie son? Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists. Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they "transfer" a firearm within the household? This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family member outside the home. It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000 guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys with dubious accuracy. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same address. Right, because we can't do anything about anything. Your answer to virtually every significant issue. Insane libertarianism. |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/15 1:35 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:37:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 11:34 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock by his father back in April. By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come up disallowing Roof from purchasing it. But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other states) does not require a background check for personal transfers. Seems we've had this debate before. You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the druggie son? Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists. Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they "transfer" a firearm within the household? This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family member outside the home. It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000 guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys with dubious accuracy. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same address. Right, because we can't do anything about anything. Your answer to virtually every significant issue. Insane libertarianism. Your assertion that every issue has a government solution is just as silly. Laws don't change culture and, as BAO points out, we have a very strong gun culture ... but you are part of it so I don't need to explain that to you. Most of the guns used in these high profile shootings were legally purchased and the buyer did fill out a BATF form. It is the murders that the press is not interested in covering that involve the illegal guns and since those people are involved in plenty of other illegal activity, no there is not much another law would solve. I don't recall stating that every issue has a government solution. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On 6/22/15 12:35 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:12:07 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 1:35 PM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:37:15 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 11:34 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock by his father back in April. By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come up disallowing Roof from purchasing it. But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other states) does not require a background check for personal transfers. Seems we've had this debate before. You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the druggie son? Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists. Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they "transfer" a firearm within the household? This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family member outside the home. It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000 guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys with dubious accuracy. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same address. Right, because we can't do anything about anything. Your answer to virtually every significant issue. Insane libertarianism. Your assertion that every issue has a government solution is just as silly. Laws don't change culture and, as BAO points out, we have a very strong gun culture ... but you are part of it so I don't need to explain that to you. Most of the guns used in these high profile shootings were legally purchased and the buyer did fill out a BATF form. It is the murders that the press is not interested in covering that involve the illegal guns and since those people are involved in plenty of other illegal activity, no there is not much another law would solve. I don't recall stating that every issue has a government solution. Yet you do all the time. I have a hard time thinking about anything you do not want the government in charge of. No, I don't "do all the time." You're just opposed to anyone doing anything to try to resolve the issues that face our society. |
|
#9
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock by his father back in April. By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come up disallowing Roof from purchasing it. But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other states) does not require a background check for personal transfers. Seems we've had this debate before. You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the druggie son? Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists. Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they "transfer" a firearm within the household? This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family member outside the home. It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000 guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys with dubious accuracy. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same address. But a different person responsible for it. |
|
#10
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Private gun transfers
On 6/22/2015 12:44 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 14:52:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 11:34 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:57:36 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/21/15 10:48 AM, wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2015 07:52:04 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/21/2015 6:34 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 20 Jun 2015 19:08:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The Washington Post is reporting that Dylann Roof was given the .45 Glock by his father back in April. By law, Roof could not purchase a firearm in SC because he had a felony charge pending (drugs). According to the Washington Post a FFL would have run a background check and the charge would have come up disallowing Roof from purchasing it. But the loophole was the private transfer. SC (along with 40 other states) does not require a background check for personal transfers. Seems we've had this debate before. You reckon the dad would have filled out the paperwork before giving the gun to the druggie son? Not as the law stands now. But perhaps if it was illegal to transfer firearms without a background check he may not have done so. Based on media reports it appears Root's parents are law abiding and not racists. Do you really think that every person in Maryland or Massachusetts fills out all of those forms and involves the government when they "transfer" a firearm within the household? This wasn't even a case of getting a gun from a neighbor or a family member outside the home. It's almost but not quite funny that your answer to virtually every serious challenge facing us is, "We really can't do anything about that." Well, that's a cop-out, bull**** answer. It is also accurate. There are an estimated 300,000,000 - 400,000,000 guns in this country and we are not sure who actually owns half of them. The best we can come up with in most cases are anonymous surveys with dubious accuracy. Every single firearm should have to be registered with an appropriate government agency, and every time one is sold or otherwise transferred, the name and address of its new owner should be recorded. That should be the first step. In this case the only thing that would have changed on that form was the first name of the owner. It was the same family at the same address. But a different person responsible for it. A distinction without a difference if it was in the same house the whole time. The only person "responsible" is the person holding it at any given time. My guess is there were a number of firearms in that house. The responsibility for owning a firearm isn't limited to when you are holding it. You are also responsible for who has access to it. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Those small transfers | General | |||
| Those small transfers | General | |||
| Those small transfers | General | |||
| Private company welfare? | General | |||
| stock market huckster are running out of carefully cultivated myths(that transfers your wealth to them)that are falling to reality, buy and hold, invest for the long term, stocks are cheap right now, and now the biggie:Diversification | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
