Trump admin bans Bump Stocks

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Other than making confiscation infinitely easier to implement you mean?

So your argument is that we can't have gun registration because it makes it tougher on criminals who refuse to comply with gun laws?

Since when should we base policy decisions on helping criminals?

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 06:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah,folks should purchase their own guns. However, it seems requiring IDs and classes just seems like taxing a right. It doesn't seem fair to the poor who cannot get these identifications and classes; where's your compassion? 

My compassion is for the safety of the public.  80% of gun crimes are committed by people who do not legally own the gun they use.  Everyone benefits from helping keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Where is yours?

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The anti-gun side will not stop with the next victory and they've shown this to be true more frequently of late.  Any concession will be followed by a demand for another

Show me where it gun registration and licensing is required to be in place before there can be confiscation laws.

The connection does not exist.  If people want to pass confiscation laws they can do that without any registration or licensing requirements.

This whole argument is nothing but a red herring that means nothing. 

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 06:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems kind of elitist. 

How exactly is public safety "elitist".

Most victims of gun crimes are inner city poor people.  Your pandering to gun manufactures who don't want one of their biggest markets (criminals) cut off seems more elitist than me trying to reduce gun violence.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's an odd statement to make considering our prisons are full of them

It is not odd at all when you consider the percentage that are still on the street.

I guess you think there is no opioid crisis either since we have so many drug users/dealers in jail, right?

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 07:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  By your logic we shouldn't be able to ever catch drug dealers.

By your logic we have already caught every drug dealer.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2019, 09:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Funny how some folks consider a gun more dangerous than a vote. Rights are rights, but folks will try to restrict the ones they are opposed to.

Fortunately, I can say I'm pretty much consistent in the matter. I'm of the opinion that with rights come responsibility.

We can take your word for it, that you are a legally registered voter when you show up at the booth, but to exercise your 2nd; many think you need Identification, registration, background checks, and training.

Why can someone vote with 0 responsibility, but cannot arm themselves without going through hoops. Why no training required to demonstrate you know what you are doing when you vote.

The problem with this line of argument is that there has never been widespread voter fraud committed by hundreds of thousands of people who somehow obtained lists of registered voters that they somehow knew would not vote.  

All restrictions on rights involve a balancing test by the courts.  They have to balance the public welfare against the limitation of any right.  Citizens have freedom of speech and assembly but courts have upheld things like licenses for parades or public gatherings because it is a minor limitation and it is in the best interest of the public to have some control of these situations and have people to hold responsible when they get out of hand or lead to violence.  The same thing applies here.  Since there is not proof of all of widespread voter fraud committed by people who somehow got the names of registered voters they knew would not vote the requirement of voter ID then there is really no damage to balance against the people who would be suppressed from voting.  However when dealing with gun violence we have hundreds of thousands of cases every year and 80% of them are committed by people who are not the legal owners of the guns they use.  Therefore there is a HUGE public safety problem to balance against the limited restriction  of requiring licensing and registration of guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2019, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So your argument is that we can't have gun registration because it makes it tougher on criminals who refuse to comply with gun laws?

Since when should we base policy decisions on helping criminals?

I'll ask you point blank, yes or no, would a registry make confiscation significantly easier to carry out?

(03-29-2019, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Show me where it gun registration and licensing is required to be in place before there can be confiscation laws.

The connection does not exist.  If people want to pass confiscation laws they can do that without any registration or licensing requirements.

This whole argument is nothing but a red herring that means nothing. 

I'll ask you point blank, yes or no, would a registry make confiscation significantly easier to carry out?

(03-29-2019, 11:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not odd at all when you consider the percentage that are still on the street.

I guess you think there is no opioid crisis either since we have so many drug users/dealers in jail, right?

You're right, maybe we should make opioids illegal to possess and have a register of who is allowed to have them and how many.  That should solve the problem!

(03-29-2019, 11:46 AM)fredtoast Wrote: By your logic we have already caught every drug dealer.

No, that's not a logical statement or a logical inference to make from my point.  I will now leave you to respond to this single post in five separate posts.  

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll ask you point blank, yes or no, would a registry make confiscation significantly easier to carry out?


I'll ask you point blank, yes or no, would a registry make confiscation significantly easier to carry out?

Yes, and I will ask you point blank.  Why should we base public policy on helping criminals?

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're right, maybe we should make opioids illegal to possess and have a register of who is allowed to have them and how many.  That should solve the problem!

It does not solve the problem but it does aid in fighting against it.  Many arrests are based on people possessing drugs without a prescription.  

Are you really arguing that requiring prescriptions does not help in the fight against opioid trafficking?

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, that's not a logical statement or a logical inference to make from my point. 

The point is that having guns registered to owners would make it much easier to keep them out of the hands of criminals.  I said that if I sold a weapon it could never be traced back to me.  Instead of arguing about the absolute I will instead say that it would be very difficult to trace it back to me.  Right now it is very simple to sell a gun to a convicted felon and it is hard to trace that sale back to me.  That is why there are people who make lots of money in selling guns to criminals.  If every gun was registered to an owner it would be much harder to trqffick stolen guns and there would be a person who would be held responsible for guns used in crimes.

Nothing works 100% of the time, but that is not reason to make things so much easier for criminals.

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I will now leave you to respond to this single post in five separate posts.  

I do it intentionally to show people how easily I can get in your head.

Seriously, not a single other person here ever mentions it.

[Dill]

(03-29-2019, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Show me where it gun registration and licensing is required to be in place before there can be confiscation laws.

The connection does not exist.  If people want to pass confiscation laws they can do that without any registration or licensing requirements.

This whole argument is nothing but a red herring that means nothing. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-29-2019, 11:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem with this line of argument is that there has never been widespread voter fraud committed by hundreds of thousands of people who somehow obtained lists of registered voters that they somehow knew would not vote.  

All restrictions on rights involve a balancing test by the courts.  They have to balance the public welfare against the limitation of any right.  Citizens have freedom of speech and assembly but courts have upheld things like licenses for parades or public gatherings because it is a minor limitation and it is in the best interest of the public to have some control of these situations and have people to hold responsible when they get out of hand or lead to violence.  The same thing applies here.  Since there is not proof of all of widespread voter fraud committed by people who somehow got the names of registered voters they knew would not vote the requirement of voter ID then there is really no damage to balance against the people who would be suppressed from voting.  However when dealing with gun violence we have hundreds of thousands of cases every year and 80% of them are committed by people who are not the legal owners of the guns they use.  Therefore there is a HUGE public safety problem to balance against the limited restriction  of requiring licensing and registration of guns.

Still doesn't seem fair to over burden the poor that simply want to protect their family; but thems the breaks I guess. Personally, I'm right their with you. With Rights come responsibility.

[*bfine32*]

(03-29-2019, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It does not solve the problem but it does aid in fighting against it.  Many arrests are based on people possessing drugs without a prescription.  

Are you really arguing that requiring prescriptions does not help in the fight against opioid trafficking?

Don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I think you example sorta proves his point. They've already obtained the gun/drugs and the law did not stop them from obtaining it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-29-2019, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, and I will ask you point blank.  Why should we base public policy on helping criminals?

All laws should be a balance between protecting the public, punishing criminals and shielding the public from the abuse of said law.  One need look no further than the Patriot Act.  Do you have a problem with the government spying on you?  If you do, why do you want to help criminals by not allowing it?  I've asked you before if you would be in favor of mandatory fingerprint and DNA collection for everyone.  You said absolutely not.  Why not?  It would help tremendously in catching criminals if everyone's fingerprint and DNA were available to the police?  At the time you stated that such a law was ripe for abuse.  Consequently, you completely grasp the point I am making about a national registry, but you don't like the topic, or the presenter, so you either refuse to make the logical connection or you do and you're being contrary just for the fun of it.

(03-29-2019, 12:42 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It does not solve the problem but it does aid in fighting against it.  Many arrests are based on people possessing drugs without a prescription.  

Are you really arguing that requiring prescriptions does not help in the fight against opioid trafficking?

They sure do.  I would also add that owning opioids is not a right enshrined in our Constitution. 

(03-29-2019, 12:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The point is that having guns registered to owners would make it much easier to keep them out of the hands of criminals.  I said that if I sold a weapon it could never be traced back to me.  Instead of arguing about the absolute I will instead say that it would be very difficult to trace it back to me.  Right now it is very simple to sell a gun to a convicted felon and it is hard to trace that sale back to me.  That is why there are people who make lots of money in selling guns to criminals.  If every gun was registered to an owner it would be much harder to trqffick stolen guns and there would be a person who would be held responsible for guns used in crimes.

Nothing works 100% of the time, but that is not reason to make things so much easier for criminals.

There are people who make lots of money selling guns to criminals.  If they purchased them legally then there absolutely is a way to trace it back to them, through the NICS check they underwent when they purchased it.  If you're talking about older weapons, then no, there is no sure fire way.  Of course, you can always use a tried and true, old as dirt, police investigative tactic to do just that, get the guy with the gun to flip on who sold it to them.  See, we catch lots of baddies who sell guns right now, Fred.  I'm sure you've defended many of them in court.  I don't think, and I am hardly alone in this, that a national registry, with its huge potential for abuse, is warranted to achieve this.  Just the same way you don't think and mandatory fingerprint and DNA registry is warranted to prevent crime and arrest criminals.

(03-29-2019, 12:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I do it intentionally to show people how easily I can get in your head.

Yeah, it really activates my almonds.

Quote:Seriously, not a single other person here ever mentions it.

If you only do it to "get in my head" why would anyone else comment on it?

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 06:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All laws should be a balance between protecting the public, punishing criminals and shielding the public from the abuse of said law.  One need look no further than the Patriot Act.  Do you have a problem with the government spying on you?  If you do, why do you want to help criminals by not allowing it?  I've asked you before if you would be in favor of mandatory fingerprint and DNA collection for everyone.  You said absolutely not.  Why not?  It would help tremendously in catching criminals if everyone's fingerprint and DNA were available to the police?  At the time you stated that such a law was ripe for abuse.  Consequently, you completely grasp the point I am making about a national registry, but you don't like the topic, or the presenter, so you either refuse to make the logical connection or you do and you're being contrary just for the fun of it.

First of all I do not remember that discussion at all.  Maybe you have me confused with someone else.  But this is still a false equivalency.

Guns are dangerous weapons.  Therefore we have to take special steps to insure public safety regarding their ownership and use.  There are lots of requirements that I may oppose for the general public but be in favor of for gun owners.  Gun owners are a special class of people who posses dangerous weapons.  Therefore treating them differently is justified for purposes of public safety.  I am not saying that every citizen has to register every item they own and be licensed to own/operate it.  I am just saying we need laws like this regarding deadly poisons, explosives, planes, cars, large machinery, guns, etc.  The fact that "arms" are listed in the Constitution and those other items are not does not change the need to protect public safety.  We already have many laws limiting Constitutional rights based on public safety.

I'll bet even you agree that there should be some registration/licensing requirements for citizens to buy stinger missiles or anti-aircraft guns.  But those are just "arms".  So why the accepted double standard?

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 06:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I don't think, and I am hardly alone in this, that a national registry, with its huge potential for abuse, is warranted to achieve this. 

What you call "abuse" I call enforcing the law.

Citizens are not allowed to decide which laws are just.  They are free to protest and campaign in order to get those laws changed, but they can't claim that they are "law abiding citizens" if they refuse to follow the law.  There are people who think it should be legal to have sex with a 14 year old girl.  They will even point out how girls used to get married and have kids at that age.  But that does not mean they are "law abiding citizens" when they have sex with those girls.  Same goes with the possession and use of many drugs.  Personally I think pot should be legal, but I don't call people who sell pot here in Tennessee "law abiding citizens".

[fredtoast]

(03-29-2019, 05:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but I think you example sorta proves his point. They've already obtained the gun/drugs and the law did not stop them from obtaining it.

Just because the law does not stop everyone does not mean that the law is useless.  Lots of people are stopped from using or obtaining drugs because they are illegal.  

When meth became a huge problem here a few years ago they passed a law that required people to sign a registry and show ID in order to purchase over-the-counter drugs containing pseudoephedrine. That law was used to stop many people from cooking meth. 

[Benton]

(03-29-2019, 12:37 AM)Beaker Wrote: The 3% that dont care arent going to get a license either.

You're catching on.

If they're supposed to, but don't ... or more importantly can't because they can't pass the mental part or other components... then that gives authorities a reason to remove firearms from someone of concern.

As it is, if you have concerns that your neighbor may be a whack job planning to hurt someone, there's next to nothing cops can do. They can have a conversation with him, but that's about it. 

You can impose a 10,000 year sentence on someone, it's not going to prevent someone unhinged from committing a violent act. And it puts no tools in law enforcement's tool box for preventing it. Licensing does.

Sorry don't worry so much about the 97 percent that aren't (and aren't planning on) doing it, and find a way to curb the 3%.